Search results

We review and synthesize the burgeoning literature on institutions and agents engaged in the commercialization of university-based intellectual property. These studies indicate that institutional incentives and organizational practices play an important role in enhancing the effectiveness of technology transfer. We conclude that university technology transfer should be considered from a strategic perspective. Institutions that choose to stress the entrepreneurial dimension of technology transfer need to address skill deficiencies in technology transfer offices, reward systems that are inconsistent with enhanced entrepreneurial activity, and education/training for faculty members, post-docs, and graduate students relating to interactions with entrepreneurs. Business schools at these universities can play a major role in addressing these skill and educational deficiencies through the delivery of targeted programs to technology licensing officers and members of the campus community wishing to launch startup firms.

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.

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.

University–industry technology transfer is growing at a rapid rate in China, involving both multinational and domestic companies. This chapter describes unique characteristics of Chinese National Technology Transfer Centers (NTTCs) and examines whether they can function as an effective policy instrument in promoting the commercialization of university research findings. Our qualitative and quantitative study finds that NTTCs are not by themselves an effective policy tool in accelerating the commercialization of university inventions. We found that universities without NTTCs can achieve the same or even greater success than those with NTTCs. We suggest that Chinese universities should mimic the Western approach by providing an attractive reward system and autonomy to technology management programs that stimulate their efforts in marketing patented technology.

Colleges and universities play a vital role in the creation and dissemination of the innovations that feed the knowledge economy. First, universities carryout a significant portion of the basic research that is conducted in the United States. In 2006, the National Science Foundation reported having awarded $30 B in research-based funding to colleges and universities (National Science Foundation, 2007). While this figure is not an indicator of innovation output, the number helps to demonstrate the scope of research activity that is occurring within the academy. Mansfield (1995) noted that government funding for university research is bent toward science that holds commercial potential and highlighted that such research is likely to produce a high amount of social benefits. Mansfield also concluded that measuring the social returns of university-born (and federally funded) innovations though difficult, is important. Second, universities are instrumental in the production of economically relevant human capital, including students trained in key science and technology disciplines (Leslie & Brinkman, 1988). Audretsch (2007) indicates a highly educated workforce that is capable of creating and moving innovative technologies into the marketplace is a critical component of the current entrepreneurial economy. Also, faculty who intersect industry through consulting and other commercial-related activities make valuable contributions to the economic growth and prosperity of communities, regions, and beyond. In short, colleges and universities are key contributors to the production and function of the innovations that largely drive the knowledge economy.

In many states, legislators have serious concerns about American competitiveness in the global economy. Based on Thomas Friedman's The World Is Flat – perhaps the most highly read book in policy communities over the past decade – legislators are aware the United States is falling behind other countries on many indicators of educational attainment. Although the United States was once a leader in higher education access, with 60 percent of its population attending at least some college, nine countries now exceed this level of participation (Wagner, 2006). Our educational attainment is predicted to increase in the future, not because of increasing participation rates, but because of the expanding college-going population. In production of bachelor's degrees, the United States is now merely average among the 20 most prosperous countries. On a per capita basis, one could argue that the United States no longer has the best higher education system in the world.

With respect to university technology transfer, the purpose of this paper is to examine the literature focused on the relationship between university research faculty and technology transfer office staff. We attempt to provide greater understanding of how research faculty’s personal values and research universities’ organization values may differ and why. Faculty researchers and tech transfer office (TTO) staff are perceived to be virtuous agents. When both are meeting each other’s needs, a “love” relationship exists. However, when these needs are not met, a “hate” relationship exists that is replete with doubt and uncertainty. This doubt and uncertainty creates tension and subsequent conflicts. There are many accounts where faculty researchers have not followed university policies and expectations, often violating policy and ethical standards. Likewise, faculty report numerous examples of how TTO staff members’ negligence in servicing their attempts to be good institutional citizens have failed them. This paper explores this love/hate relationship and reveals numerous conflicts that call into question ethical concerns. It also provides a set of recommendations for reducing and potentially alleviating these concerns. Literature review. Results from a thorough review of the literature on the relationship between faculty and university TTOs reveals that perceived job insecurity is the primary reason that some research faculty members as well as some TTO staff, unethically violate their university policy to disclose invention disclosures and select to not provide full services, respectively. One way to alleviate the conflict between faculty’s personal values regarding their inventions and university’s organizational values is to enact measures that build trust and reduce insecurity among faculty members and TTO staff. In this paper, we not only examine this faculty/TTO staff ethical conflicts, but we offer a set of recommendations that we believe will reduce the likelihood of unethical behavior while encouraging greater institutional commitment and trust.

Both entrepreneurship education and commercialization of university research have witnessed remarkable growth in the past two decades. These activities may be complementary in many respects, as when participation in an entrepreneurship program prepares a student to start a company based on university technology, or when technology transfer personnel provide resources and expertise for an entrepreneurship course. At the same time, however, the activities are distinct along a number of dimensions, including goals and mission, influence of market conditions, time horizon, assessment, and providers and constituency. We argue that this situation presents an organizational dilemma: How should entrepreneurship and technology transfer groups within a university maintain independence in recognition of their differences while still facilitating synergies resulting from overlapping areas of concern? In response to this dilemma, we draw on the organizational modularity perspective, which offers the normative prescription that such situations warrant autonomy for individual units, but also require a high degree of cross-unit awareness in order to capture synergies. To illustrate this perspective in an intra-university population of entrepreneurship and technology transfer groups, we present network images and statistics of inter-group relationships at Stanford University, which is widely recognized for its success in both activities. The results highlight that dependence between groups is minimal, such that groups retain autonomy in decision-making and are not dependent on others to complete their goals. Simultaneously, cross-unit awareness is high, such that groups have frequent formal and informal interactions and communication. This awareness facilitates mutually beneficial interactions between groups. As a demonstration of the actual functioning of this system, we present three thumbnail case studies that highlight positive relationships between entrepreneurship education and technology transfer. Ultimately, we argue that to fully realize the synergies between entrepreneurship education and technology transfer, we must also recognize differences between them and ensure the autonomy that such differences warrant.

The purpose of this paper is to empirically examine the effects of different R&D funding inputs – including funding for basic research, applied research, and development – on different innovation outcomes (e.g. inventions, patents, licenses, and start-ups).

The study borrowed the resource dependence theory perspective by focusing on the proportion of funding secured from various external sources that fund university R&D, and assessed its effect on the nature and outcomes of the university research activity.

Results indicated that greater funding of basic research was associated with more inventions and patents; greater funding of applied research was associated with more licenses; and greater funding for development activities was associated with more university start-ups.

The contributions of this study are two folded: first, it added to the debate that more R&D investment is indeed associated with more innovation outcomes; and second, it is important to differentiate the R&D funding inputs as they are related to different innovation outcomes.

The purpose of this paper is to understand different institutional mechanisms for promoting effective innovation diffusion and maximizing spillovers from fruitfulness of university‐industry linkages.

The approach involved the content analysis of university documents and in‐depth interviews with university personnel. The paper investigated the types of changes which had been instituted by selected universities in regards to the management of invention disclosure and patent licensing procedures, policies for new business startups by faculty and graduates. The paper then studies how university incentive structures have been reshaped to encourage and facilitate engagement with industry.

The types of changes have been instituted by select universities enhance research commercialization capacity in regards to the management of invention disclosure and patent licensing, policies for new business startups by faculty and graduates, and provision of seed capital, training and incubator facilities, especially the relationship between technology transfer offices and university administration, as well as faculty; how university incentive structure has been reshaped to encourage and facilitate engagement with industry; how gross royalties and/or net royalty income are distributed between university and faculty.

This paper describes the important role of institutional underpinnings for building commercial linkages. It also explores what university policies and institutions shape the nature and fruitfulness of innovation diffusion in China.