University–Industry collaborations and international knowledge spillovers: a joint-patent investigation

The present work aims at investigating under which circumstances University–Industry (UI) collaborations develop innovations whose spillovers are largely reused by other foreign firms in the development of subsequent and related innovations. In order to answer to this research question, we carried out several analyses from a sample of 772 joint patents in the pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and medical technology sectors, developed by German and Italian universities in collaboration with a firm. Our results show a positive effect of UI collaborations involving local partners, which encourage knowledge sharing and the adoption and combination of foreign knowledge by the same partners, which may complement knowledge and resources available at national level. Finally, we pointed out a positive moderating effect of university specialization, which may increase partners’ absorptive capacity, hence favoring a more effective use of foreign knowledge. Our paper enables a better understanding of the determinants of the innovative impact of UI collaborations, by shedding new light on the mechanisms of global innovations systems that characterize the industries under analysis. Moreover, our work shows how innovation processes in these industries may be favored by adequate search strategies and the choice of effective university partners.

[1]  B. Balassa.  Trade Liberalisation and “Revealed” Comparative Advantage , 1965 .

[2]  Henry G. Grabowski,et al.  The Determinants of Industrial Research and Development: A Study of the Chemical, Drug, and Petroleum Industries , 1968, Journal of Political Economy.

[3]  D. Kleinbaum,et al.  Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariate Methods , 1978 .

[4]  Wesley M. Cohen,et al.  Empirical studies of innovation and market structure , 1989 .

[5]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[6]  S. West,et al.  Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. , 1994 .

[7]  F. Malerba,et al.  Technological Regimes and Firm Bebavior , 1993 .

[8]  D. Teece.  Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy , 1993 .

[9]  J. Davidson Frame,et al.  Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data , 1994 .

[10]  Peter Maskell,et al.  Localized Learning and Industrial Competitiveness , 1995 .

[11]  R. Gulati.  Does Familiarity Breed Trust? The Implications of Repeated Ties for Contractual Choice in Alliances , 1995 .

[12]  D. Mowery,et al.  Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer , 1996 .

[13]  James D. Adams,et al.  Bounding the Effects of R&D an Investigation Using Matched Establishment-Firm Data , 1996 .

[14]  W. Powell,et al.  Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. , 1996 .

[15]  S. Bartholomew.  National Systems of Biotechnology Innovation: Complex Interdependence in the Global System , 1997 .

[16]  Attila Varga,et al.  Local Geographic Spillovers between University Research and High Technology Innovations , 1997 .

[17]  Peter J. Lane,et al.  Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning , 1998 .

[18]  B. Clark,et al.  The entrepreneurial university: Demand and response , 1998 .

[19]  U. Schmoch,et al.  Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields , 1998 .

[20]  Jeffrey M. Wooldridge,et al.  Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach , 1999 .

[21]  B. Kogut,et al.  Localization of Knowledge and the Mobility of Engineers in Regional Networks , 1999 .

[22]  Alexander Gerybadze,et al.  Globalization of R&D: recent changes in the management of innovation in transnational corporations , 1999 .

[23]  H. Etzkowitz,et al.  The Future of the University and the University of the Future: Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm , 2000 .

[24]  W. Mitchell,et al.  Learning from competing partners: outcomes and durations of scale and link alliances in Europe, North America and Asia , 2000 .

[25]  J. H. Dyer,et al.  Creating and managing a high‐performance knowledge‐sharing network: the Toyota case , 2000 .

[26]  Toby E. Stuart.  Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: A study of growth and innovation rates i , 2000 .

[27]  O. Sorenson,et al.  Science as a Map in Technological Search , 2000 .

[28]  Peter Maskell,et al.  Towards a Knowledge‐based Theory of the Geographical Cluster , 2001 .

[29]  James D. Adams,et al.  Comparative Localization of Academic and Industrial Spillovers , 2001 .

[30]  E. Strobl,et al.  Spillovers from Foreign Firms Through Worker Mobility: An Empirical Investigation , 2002, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[31]  B. Tether.  Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis , 2002 .

[32]  J. Howells.  Tacit Knowledge, Innovation and Economic Geography , 2002 .

[33]  Paul Almeida,et al.  Are Firms Superior to Alliances and Markets? An Empirical Test of Cross-Border Knowledge Building , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[34]  R. Parthasarthy,et al.  Product innovation input and outcome: moderating effects of the innovation process , 2002 .

[35]  B. Asheim,et al.  Regional Innovation Systems: The Integration of Local ‘Sticky’ and Global ‘Ubiquitous’ Knowledge , 2002 .

[36]  Z. Griliches,et al.  Citations, Family Size, Opposition and the Value of Patent Rights Have Profited from Comments and Suggestions , 2002 .

[37]  Jeremy Howells,et al.  The Strategic Impact of Internet Technology in Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Firms: Insights from a Knowledge Management Perspective , 2003, Inf. Technol. Manag..

[38]  Albert N. Link,et al.  Universities as Research Partners , 2003 .

[39]  H. Etzkowitz.  Research groups as ???quasi-firms???: the invention of the entrepreneurial university , 2003 .

[40]  C. Hardy,et al.  Resources, Knowledge and Influence: The Organizational Effects of Interorganizational Collaboration* , 2003 .

[41]  John Scott,et al.  Absorptive Capacity and the Efficiency of Research Partnerships , 2003, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[42]  Anthony Arundel,et al.  Proximity and the use of public science by innovative European firms , 2004 .

[43]  Varghese P. George,et al.  Reach out or reach within? Performance implications of alliances and location in biotechnology , 2004 .

[44]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  Knowledge Networks as Channels and Conduits: The Effects of Spillovers in the Boston Biotechnology Community , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[45]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  How do multinational companies leverage technological competencies? Moving from single to interdependent explanations , 2004 .

[46]  K. Morgan.  The Exaggerated Death of Geography , 2004, Geography.

[47]  Tom Nicholas,et al.  Was Electricity a General Purpose Technology? Evidence from Historical Patent Citations , 2004 .

[48]  H. Bathelt,et al.  Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation , 2004 .

[49]  Myriam Mariani,et al.  What determines technological hits? Geography vs. firm competencies , 2004 .

[50]  Jasjit Singh,et al.  Collaborative Networks as Determinants of Knowledge Diffusion Patterns , 2005, Manag. Sci..

[51]  R. Boschma.  Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment , 2005 .

[52]  Pamela Mueller,et al.  Exploring the Knowledge Filter: How Entrepreneurship and University-Industry Relationships Drive Economic Growth ∗ , 2006 .

[53]  Andrew C. Inkpen,et al.  Social Capital, Networks, and Knowledge Transfer , 2005 .

[54]  Jeffrey H. Dyer,et al.  Relation‐specific capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfers: creating advantage through network relationships , 2006 .

[55]  Karin Fladmoe-Lindquist,et al.  Breakthrough innovations in the U.S. biotechnology industry: the effects of technological space and geographic origin , 2006 .

[56]  Antonio Capaldo.  Network Structure and Innovation: The Leveraging of a Dual Network as a Distinctive Relational Capability , 2006 .

[57]  B. Carlsson.  Internationalization of innovation systems: A survey of the literature ☆ , 2006 .

[58]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Potential sources of bias in research fellowship assessments: effects of university prestige and field of study , 2006 .

[59]  R. Parente,et al.  Determinants of cross-national knowledge transfer and its effect on firm innovation , 2007 .

[60]  Stephen Tallman,et al.  Leveraging Knowledge Across Geographic Boundaries , 2007, Organ. Sci..

[61]  Martina Fromhold-Eisebith,et al.  Bridging Scales in Innovation Policies: How to Link Regional, National and International Innovation Systems , 2007 .

[62]  Rachelle C. Sampson.  R&D Alliances and Firm Performance: The Impact of Technological Diversity and Alliance Organization on Innovation , 2007 .

[63]  Pablo D'Este,et al.  University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? , 2007 .

[64]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity , 2007 .

[65]  Jaeyong Song,et al.  Creating new technology through alliances: An empirical investigation of joint patents , 2007 .

[66]  R. Kitney,et al.  PARTNERSHIP AND INNOVATION IN THE LIFE SCIENCES , 2007 .

[67]  M. Knudsen.  The Relative Importance of Interfirm Relationships and Knowledge Transfer for New Product Development Success , 2007 .

[68]  M. Perkmann,et al.  University Industry Relationships and Open Innovation: Towards a Research Agenda , 2007 .

[69]  James Mittra,et al.  Life Science Innovation and the Restructuring of the Pharmaceutical Industry: Merger, Acquisition and Strategic Alliance Behaviour of Large Firms , 2007, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[70]  B. Lundvall,et al.  Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation , 2007 .

[71]  M. Gittelman,et al.  Applicant and Examiner Citations in US Patents: An Overview and Analysis , 2008 .

[72]  A. Neely,et al.  Gaining from interactions with universities: multiple methods for nurturing absorptive capacity , 2008 .

[73]  David A. Wolfe,et al.  Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial University of Waterloo , 2008 .

[74]  A. Amin,et al.  Knowing in action: beyond communities of practice , 2008 .

[75]  Kira Fabrizio.  Absorptive capacity and the search for innovation , 2009 .

[76]  R. Ponds,et al.  The limits to internationalization of scientific research collaboration , 2009 .

[77]  R. Handfield,et al.  Knowledge Sharing in Interorganizational Product Development Teams: The Effect of Formal and Informal Socialization Mechanisms* , 2009 .

[78]  M. Perkmann,et al.  The Two Faces of Collaboration: Impacts of University-Industry Relations on Public Research , 2009 .

[79]  M. Perkmann,et al.  Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations , 2009 .

[80]  Pablo D'Este,et al.  The spatial profile of university-business research partnerships , 2010 .

[81]  K. Frenken,et al.  Innovation, spillovers, and university-industry collaboration: An extended knowledge production function approach , 2010 .

[82]  Federica Rossi,et al.  Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting , 2011 .

[83]  Angeles Montoro-Sánchez,et al.  Effects of Knowledge spillovers on Innovation and Collaboration in Science and Technology Parks , 2011, J. Knowl. Manag..

[84]  Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli,et al.  The impact of technological relatedness, prior ties, and geographical distance on university-industry collaborations: A joint-patent analysis , 2011 .

[85]  A. Salter,et al.  Exploring the Effect of Geographical Proximity and University Quality on University–Industry Collaboration in the United Kingdom , 2011 .

[86]  Ryan Lampe.  Strategic Citation , 2010, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[87]  Mario Kafouros,et al.  The role of open innovation in emerging economies: Do companies profit from the scientific knowledge of others? , 2012 .

[88]  Cristina Sousa,et al.  Topologies of innovation networks in knowledge-intensive sectors: Sectoral differences in the access to knowledge and complementary assets through formal and informal ties , 2012 .

[89]  Torsten Oliver Salge,et al.  The temporal trajectories of innovative search: Insights from public hospital services , 2012 .

[90]  Dovev Lavie,et al.  Collaborating for Knowledge Creation and Application: The Case of Nanotechnology Research Programs , 2011, Organ. Sci..

[91]  C. Werker,et al.  Universities’ functions in knowledge transfer: a geographical perspective , 2013 .

[92]  D. Mahr,et al.  The Value of Customer Co-Created Knowledge during the Innovation Process , 2013 .

[93]  A. Salter,et al.  Academic Engagement and Commercialisation: A Review of the Literature on University-Industry Relations , 2012 .

[94]  A. Petruzzelli,et al.  Partner Geographic and Organizational Proximity and the Innovative Performance of Knowledge‐Creating Alliances , 2014 .

[95]  Jeffrey J. Reuer,et al.  Searching for Alliance Partners: Effects of Geographic Distance on the Formation of R&D Collaborations , 2014, Organ. Sci..

[96]  K. Briggs,et al.  More is better: evidence that joint patenting leads to quality innovation , 2014 .

[97]  B. Thijs,et al.  Academic Research Strengths and Multinational Firms' Foreign R&D Location Decisions: Evidence from R&D Investments in European Regions , 2014 .

[98]  A. M. Subramanian,et al.  When do firms benefit from university–industry R&D collaborations? The implications of firm R&D focus on scientific research and technological recombination , 2014 .

[99]  Pengfei Li.  Global temporary networks of clusters: structures and dynamics of trade fairs in Asian economies , 2014 .

[100]  B. Looy,et al.  Co-Ownership of Intellectual Property: Exploring the Value-Appropriation and Value-Creation Implications of Co-Patenting with Different Partners , 2013 .

[101]  Jan Hohberger,et al.  Searching for Emerging Knowledge: The Influence of Collaborative and Geographically Proximate Search , 2014 .

[102]  Jie Wu,et al.  Local and international knowledge search and product innovation: The moderating role of technology boundary spanning , 2014 .

[103]  Kristie Briggs,et al.  Co-owner relationships conducive to high quality joint patents , 2015 .

[104]  Chung-Jen Chen,et al.  Technological knowledge co-creation strategies in the world of open innovation , 2015 .

[105]  S. Ankrah,et al.  Universities-Industry Collaboration: A Systematic Review , 2015 .

[106]  Daniele Rotolo,et al.  Institutional diversity, internal search behaviour, and joint-innovations , 2015 .

[107]  F. Huber,et al.  Global pipelines for innovation: insights from the case of Norway , 2015 .

[108]  Elkin Olaguer Pérez Sánchez,et al.  Measurement of potential absorption capacity in Colombia's innovative companies , 2017 .

[109]  Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli,et al.  The impact of partners’ technological diversification in joint patenting: A study on firm-PRO collaborations , 2017 .

[110]  Pankaj C. Patel,et al.  In Search of Process Innovations: The Role of Search Depth, Search Breadth, and the Industry Environment , 2017 .

[111]  V. Albino,et al.  Search and Recombination Process to Innovate: A Review of the Empirical Evidence and a Research Agenda , 2017 .

[112]  M. Kafouros,et al.  Foreign and Domestic Collaboration, Product Innovation Novelty, and Firm Growth , 2018 .

[113]  Isabell M. Welpe,et al.  University-industry collaborations and product innovation performance: the moderating effects of absorptive capacity and innovation competencies , 2018 .