Commercializing University Research in Diverse Settings: Moving Beyond Standardized Intellectual Property Management

OVERVIEW: We discuss the challenges of managing university intellectual property (IP) for applications in diverse settings that are often inadequately served by standard IP management approaches. Strategies focused on profit appropriation through legal mechanisms and control of key resources may work in some industrial settings, but may hinder innovation in others, leaving promising technologies untapped. Open innovation has been proposed as a solution, yet limited research has been conducted in broader contexts. We present four examples illustrating the challenges for university technology transfer offices (TTOs) attempting to commercialize technologies for diverse applications in unique circumstances—when government regulators are the primary users and when applications involve a number of industries with varying motivations and resources for technology adoption. More open approaches to IP management, coupled with value propositions emphasizing cognitive and sociopolitical legitimacy, can lead to more effective diffusion.

[1]  Beth Burnside,et al.  Forging Successful University–Industry Collaborations , 2008 .

[2]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Learning from one another? International policy “emulation” and university–industry technology transfer , 2011 .

[3]  Sanjay K. Jain,et al.  Technology Transfer Offices as Institutional Entrepreneurs: The Case of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation and Human Embryonic Stem Cells , 2007 .

[4]  Howard E. Aldrich,et al.  Fools Rush in? The Institutional Context of Industry Creation , 1994 .

[5]  G. Rolfe Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: quality and the idea of qualitative research. , 2006, Journal of advanced nursing.

[6]  K. Pavitt Sectoral Patterns of Technical Change : Towards a Taxonomy and a Theory : Research Policy , 1984 .

[7]  Bruno S. Silvestre,et al.  Managing technological and social uncertainties of innovation: The evolution of Brazilian energy and agriculture , 2011 .

[8]  Mark C. Suchman Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches , 1995 .

[9]  Dries Faems,et al.  Building Appropriation Advantage: An Introduction to the Special Issue on Intellectual Property Management , 2013 .

[10]  Petr Hanel,et al.  Intellectual property rights business management practices: A survey of the literature , 2006 .

[11]  Jason Timothy Wong,et al.  Technological, Commercial, Organizational, and Social Uncertainties of a Novel Process for Vanillin Production from Lignin , 2012 .

[12]  Henry C. Foley A New Approach to Intellectual Property Management and Industrially Funded Research at Penn State , 2012 .

[13]  Markus Reitzig,et al.  Value Appropriation as an Organizational Capability: The Case of Ip Protection Through Patents , 2009 .

[14]  Myles T. Collins,et al.  Suppose the USA had REACH: ramifications for formaldehyde , 2010 .

[15]  Stelvia Matos,et al.  Developing and Diffusing New Technologies: Strategies for Legitimization , 2014 .

[16]  Ammon Salter,et al.  Does IP strategy have to cripple open innovation , 2009 .

[17]  Stelvia Matos,et al.  Indicators and outcomes of Canadian university research: Proxies becoming goals? , 2006 .

[18]  David J. Teece,et al.  Innovation in Multi-Invention Contexts: Mapping Solutions to Technological and Intellectual Property Complexity , 2011 .

[19]  S. Berg Snowball Sampling—I , 2006 .

[20]  R. Yin Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .