Search results

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.

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.

Firms have typically tried to profit from their technical innovations by selling them indirectly, embedded in goods and services. Markets for technology, in which innovations are sold or licensed, have been much rarer. Yet, trade in technology has grown systematically over the past 20 years, as reflected in the growth of arrangements such as licensing agreements, R&D joint ventures, and contract R&D. Recent estimates indicate that royalties received by American corporations for industrial processes may amount to about a quarter of total U.S. R&D. A number of supporting institutions that facilitate effective dissemination of information, standardization, and contracting are vital to the rise and functioning of markets for technology. Intellectual property rights, and in particular patents, are one such institution. The main objectives of this survey are to review critically the literature on the relationship between trade in technology and patent protection, and to assess the contribution of stricter and better-defined patent protection to the emergence of technology markets. We start our survey by providing a tentative taxonomy of markets for technology and some recent evidence on their extent and evolution. We then explore several reasons why firms would be willing to act as suppliers in the market for technology. The core of the survey revolves around the idea that patents facilitate the development of markets for technology in several ways: They enhance the ability of the licensor to extract rents from its innovation; they reduce costs in technology trade by forcing an increased codification of knowledge; they reduce information asymmetries, opportunistic behaviors, and transaction costs. However, the literature also points to some potential costs of stronger patents, including litigation costs and the problem of “anti-commons.” Finally, we explore the implications of patents and markets for technology for entry, competition and industry dynamics.

Based on Chinese incubators as the research sample, this paper aims to examine whether and how incubators' entrepreneurial mentoring and financial support affect incubator patent licensing. Entrepreneurial mentoring functions through the buffering mechanism and financial support functions through the bridging and curating mechanisms.

A negative binomial model is used to empirically explain the relation between entrepreneurial mentoring or financial support and incubator patent licensing. In addition, a cross-sectional test is performed to explore whether province-level incubator support policies strengthen the effect of entrepreneurial mentoring and financial support on incubator patent licensing.

The results reveal that incubators' entrepreneurial mentoring positively affects patent licensing. In contrast, incubators' financial support has an inverted U-shaped relationship with patent licensing. In addition, the two relations are stronger when an incubator locates in a province with more incubator support policies.

The authors contribute to the literature on incubator performance by identifying an important but less discussed factor: entrepreneurial mentoring. Through the connection with mentors, tenants efficiently commercialize the value of their patents, facilitate patent licensing and expand the product market. Furthermore, the inverted U-shaped association between financial support and patent licensing shows that incubation support does not always have a linear effect on incubator patent licensing. Overall, this study provides evidence on the effect of incubator support on incubator patent licensing.

As the university–industry collaboration (UIC) gradually attracts the attention of various national governments, the number of studies on UIC has increased substantially. Past UIC studies have mostly focused on investigating the incentives and the motivation for UIC, forms of UIC and performance output of UIC. However, they have not actively identified the key technologies and technology distribution that are conductive to the commercialization of UIC outcomes. Therefore, this study aims to adopt the licensed UIC patents as the basis for analysis and to construct a patent licensing technology network.

This study focused on licensed patents because past studies have indicated that such patents usually have higher value. Moreover, patent licensing can be seen as the final step for the commercialization of UIC outcomes. Finally, past studies have rarely explored patent examiners’ views on key technologies. However, during the substantive examination of patents, patent examiners often use their background knowledge regarding the technology to include citations to other patented technologies that they consider valuable or indispensable. Therefore, this study focused on investigating the patents recognized and cited by patent examiners and conducted key technology identification.

The results indicated that past key technologies in UIC focused on surveying, medicine, biochemistry and electric digital data processing; these fields are crucial to the commercialization of key UIC technologies. Finally, the USA, Japan, Sweden and Germany play critical roles in the network of global university–industry cooperation and technology licensing.

Patent examiners’ perspectives were adopted to establish a patent licensing technology network, through which the key technologies that could promote UIC patent licensing were mined. This study can also serve as a reference for resource allocation in university research and development and for governments to promote new technologies.

Concerning the general patent trading mechanism, this paper proposes a systematic patent appraisal model to provide patent transferors and transferees a reasonable price suggestion of the target patent.

Based on the appraisal factors (including the patent transferor, patent transferee, patent features, and patent trading specifications) and regression model, a patent trading system is developed with an automatic patent appraisal function.

Based on the case study, it is found that the system performance is better if the non‐critical factors can be identified and dropped out from the appraisal model.

The proposed model and platform can enhance patent trading performance and, therefore, the enterprise R&D tasks can be accomplished more efficiently.

This study proposes quantitative models of patent appraisal factors and a multiple regression model for patent appraisal to present an automatic patent price determination mechanism.

This study aims to present a timely description of the experience and intentions of EU firms regarding patent licensing and/or selling to China in a new era, where EU firms are taking a more open approach toward innovation and the Chinese institutional environment has been recently changed.

The timing of this study provides opportunities to observe up‐to‐date perceptions of EU firms regarding their intentions and concerns about patent transactions to China right after the new Chinese Patent Law took effect in 2009. Firms from 12 European countries in various industries were surveyed through an online questionnaire.

The paper finds that large and small EU firms are different regarding the openness of innovation measured by patent transactions; for those EU firms that are not interested in licensing or selling patents, most of them are not employing an open innovation model and IP infringement is still the primary concern. EU firms are most interested in selling obsolete technologies and licensing state‐of‐art technologies to China.

Owing to the small sample size, it is difficult to identify the differences in strategies and concerns across industries in the EU and to observe and statistically present the relationships between variables.

This study renders practical guidance for both EU and Chinese firms that are already engaged in or will be interested in patent trade in the future.

The timing of the research and the uniqueness of data ensure the originality of this paper, which contributes to the open innovation literature by addressing several important issues in international technology transfer to China.

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.

Purpose – This chapter examines the licensing behavior of patent pools when they are unconstrained by antitrust rules.

Design/methodology/approach – Patent pools allow competing firms to combine their patents and license them as a package to outside firms. Regulators today favor pools that license their patents freely to outside firms, making it difficult to observe the unconstrained licensing strategies of patent pools. This chapter takes advantage of a unique period of regulatory tolerance during the New Deal to investigate the unconstrained licensing decisions of pools. Archival evidence suggests that – in the absence of regulation – pools may not choose to license their technologies.

Findings/originality/value – Eleven of twenty pools that formed between 1930 and 1938 did not issue any licenses to outside firms. Three pools granted one, two, and three licenses, respectively, to resolve litigation. Six pools issued between 9 and 185 licenses. Archival evidence suggests that the pools studied in this chapter used licensing as a means to limit competition with substitute technologies.

This chapter provides a selective survey of the theoretical and empirical literature to date on the relationship between intellectual property rights (IPRs) and measures of innovation and international technology transfer. The chapter discusses the empirical implications of theoretical work, assesses the theoretical work based on the evidence available, and identifies some gaps in the existing literature.