Search results

Academic entrepreneurship (defined in this case as the involvement of university faculty and researchers in commercial development of their inventions) has been a unique characteristic of the U.S. higher education system for most of the past 100 years. This long history of interaction, as well as academic patenting and licensing, contributed to the formation of the political coalitions that led to the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980. This paper reviews the evidence on university–industry interactions and technology transfer, focusing in particular on the role of the Bayh-Dole Act in (allegedly) transforming this relationship. I also examine recent research that considers the Act's effects on the formation of new, knowledge-based firms that seek to exploit university inventions. This research is in its infancy, and much remains to be done if we are to better understand the relationships among high-technology entrepreneurship, the foundation of new firms, and the patenting and licensing activities of U.S. universities before and after 1980.

U.S. industry–university (I–U) relations around intellectual property (IP) have become increasingly contentious since the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, while especially lucrative patents and licenses resulting from biomedical and pharmaceutical discoveries capture the headlines. Some assert that I–U relations around IP are in crisis, others suggest that no such problem exists, and still others bemoan the “increasing commercialization” of U.S. education. This chapter develops a multi-level model of I–U IP dynamics, drawing on pluralistic, multi-theory perspectives, field interviews, and secondary data. The model includes three levels: the institutional (economy) level, I–U (sector) level, and the organizational level. These levels jointly affect the immediate context of any deal. The chapter closes with a discussion of this model's implications for further research and some theoretical speculations.

Licensing from US universities is done within the overall legal framework of the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980 and the employment agreements of universities. This chapter explains common contracts used by universities to license technologies developed by their faculty and students within the context of these laws. In addition to the legal framework, the nature of license agreements is affected by the embryonic nature of most university inventions, which necessitates faculty and student involvement in development, and the entrepreneurial goals of the university. Universities have diverse goals in terms of revenue, licenses executed, inventions commercialized, patents filed, and number of startups formed. The somewhat obvious problem is that the goals of faculty, students, the university, and the licensee may not be aligned. Common contracts used are meant to align these goals. While some contracts include multiple terms such as upfront fees, running royalties, annual payments, and equity, Express Licenses are increasingly being used to accommodate the entrepreneurial environment. This chapter discusses these issues and also the importance of the rights to sublicense inventions.

This chapter explains the structure of two contracts commonly involved in university licensing: the license granting a company (or companies) outside the university rights to make, sell, or lease products or processes based on a university invention, and the nondisclosure agreement (NDA) that plays a role in the license negotiation process. In the context of the Bayh–Dole Act, the chapter explains that license contracts often contain a complex combination of payment terms intended to provide sufficient incentives for licensees to undertake the (often risky) development of embryonic research. The authors relate the intent of the Bayh–Dole Act to the concerns of university licensing professionals who often negotiate licensing agreements. The chapter then examines the same incentive issues (and the universal contract issues of money, risk, control, standards, and endgame) in the context of NDAs, used by potential licensing partners to protect their respective interests while sharing information about a licensable technology. The chapter concludes with an assignment that provides students with an opportunity to evaluate a license, not from the university's perspective but from that of a client interested in licensing an invention owned by the university.

Scientific knowledge has characteristics of a pure public good. It is non-rivalrous in the sense that once generated, it is neither depleted nor diminished by use. Knowledge is also non-excludable since, once it is made available, in the absence of clearly defined property rights, users cannot be excluded from using it. These aspects imply that private market mechanisms will not provide adequate incentives for knowledge creation. Legal property rights, such as patents, are one means of dealing with this problem. Patronage in the form of government support for research provides another solution, as does the priority system of awarding credit for scientific discoveries to the first to find them. In the last two decades, there has been a growth in the relative importance of the use of legal property rights in the university setting and with it a growing controversy as to whether the costs may be outweighing the benefits. In this chapter, we discuss issues and evidence with regard to the ownership and licensing of publicly funded research intellectual property rights (IPR). We begin with an overview of incentives created by the patent system and discuss the ways in which these incentives differ from traditional norms of science. We then draw on the legal and economic literatures which distinguish among the incentives to invent, disclose, and innovate, and argue that the rationale for providing IPR for university research stems from the last of these. Finally, we discuss the available evidence on the creation and diffusion of academic research under current IPR regimes.

This chapter discusses current issues raised by the use of patents in university-industry technology commercialization. After introducing how patent laws operate in the global marketplace, this chapter provides an overview of the U.S. patent system, describing aspects of the process by which patents are obtained and enforced. The focus of the chapter then turns to some of the benefits and costs to academia of the impact of the Bayh-Dole Act, which allows universities to capture returns from federally funded research. The chapter identifies some of the challenges created by the expanding scope of subject matter eligible for patent protection and concludes with a discussion of some of the issues and opportunities associated with the strategic licensing and enforcement of patents that may impact invention and innovation in the academy and beyond.

This paper aims at exploring the role of legislations in university startups.

Systematic review of legislations in three countries, namely, the USA, Japan and India, has been carried out to assimilate the role of special legislations in university startups.

The findings of the study reveal the important role that legislations can play in bringing out more university startups. Legislations not only protect the interest of the founder but also provide a cushion to explore further opportunities.

The implications for the makers of the legislations and policies start with the understanding that conducive legislations can help the founders to take up the challenge of starting a commercial entity out of research output.

The study adds to the limited literature connecting university startups and legislations.

The purpose of this paper is to explore significant historical changes, legislation and policy in the UK and USA from the 1960s to present day relating to university‐industry relationships.

The paper presents a review of papers, reports and policy documents from the UK and USA drawing comparisons of university‐industry relations.

The paper finds that many UK and USA universities were originally rooted in their communities with strong links to local industries. This culture has persisted and been strengthened through legislation in the USA but changes in UK policy have resulted in reduced industry links.

The paper draws on secondary sources. Future research will explore more directly effects of changes in UK universities on university‐industry interactions.

In recent years there has been an increasing UK government focus on university‐industry links. The paper seeks to show that the success of technology transfer in the USA has deeper contextual sources, which may not be easily reproduced in the UK. The history and culture of UK universities presents a barrier to current knowledge transfer initiatives.

Technology transfer in the UK and USA have been compared previously, but not set in the context of the history of the university sector. This has implications for current policy initiatives from UK government agencies seeking to develop university technology as a source of innovation for industry.

This chapter suggests that, while researchers and teachers of university technology transfer often think exclusively in terms of patents and the Bayh-Dole Act, we ought to adopt a more nuanced view of intellectual property rights (IPRs). In the text, I discuss the primary non-patent types of intellectual property (IP) protection, copyright, trademark, and trade secret, and argue that while patents are normally the “default” position when we think about protecting technologies and profiting from them, evidence suggests that patents are among the least important means of capturing value from innovation. Moreover, I suggest that while many consider that IP protections act as substitutes for one another, thinking about IPRs as complements is a more relevant approach to this issue. Adopting this more nuanced view better reflects reality and does a superior job of alerting our audiences to the opportunities available in the technology commercialization process.

This chapter opens with a brief historical account of the vision and development of the land grant college and university system. This account begins to frame the land grant model as an important American social innovation. Next, the legacy of the land grant system as a social innovation is extended through a review of the role the Cooperative Extension System in enacting the New Deal during the Great Depression era. The topic culminates in the chapter with a critical exploration of the revenue-driven university technology transfer system that is currently in place and presents an alternative model that is anchored in the principles and practices of social entrepreneurship. Land grant colleges and universities are positioned as key agents in advancing such an alternative model, which is consistent with the historical role these institutions have played in advancing the economic and social interests of the nation.