Abstract
Several recent studies show European university scientists contributing far more frequently to company-owned patented inventions than they do to patents owned by universities or by the academic scientists themselves. Recognising the significance of this channel for direct commercialisation of European academic research makes it important to understand its response to current Bayh-Dole inspired reforms of university patenting rights. This paper studies the contribution from university scientists to inventions patented by dedicated biotech firms (DBFs) specialised in drug discovery in Denmark and Sweden, which in this respect share a number of structural and historic characteristics. It examines effects of the Danish Law on University Patenting (LUP) effective January 2000, which transferred to the employer university rights to patents on inventions made by Danish university scientists alone or as participants in collaborative research with industry. Sweden so far has left property rights with academic scientists, as they also were in Denmark prior to the reform. Consequently, comparison of Danish and Swedish research collaboration before and after LUP offers a quasi-controlled experiment, bringing out effects on joint research of university IPR reform. In original data on all 3,640 inventor contributions behind the 1,087 patents filed by Danish and Swedish DBFs 1990–2004, Difference-in-Difference regressions uncover notable LUP-induced effects in the form of significant reductions in contributions from Danish domestic academic inventors, combined with a simultaneous substitutive increase of non-Danish academic inventors. A moderate increase in academic inventions channelled into university owned-patents does appear after LUP. But the larger part of the inventive potential of academia, previously mobilised into company-owned patents, seems to have been rendered inactive as a result of the reform. As a likely explanation of these effects the paper suggests that exploratory research, the typical target of joint university-DBF projects in drug discovery, fits poorly into LUP’s requirement for ex ante allocation of IPR. The Pre-LUP convention of IPR allocated to the industrial partner in return for research funding and publication rights to the academic partner may have offered more effective contracting for this type of research. There are indications that LUP, outside the exploratory agenda of drug discovery, offers a more productive framework for inventions requiring less complicated and uncertain post-discovery R&D.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In previous studies of biotech patents the authors applied this procedure and obtained identification of 85–90% of inventors. Subsequent validation, based on direct confirmation from inventors, revealed identification errors for less that 5% of inventors.
Data for this paper was extracted from the Scanbit Database, established and continuously updated by Research Centre on Biotech Business at Copenhagen Business School. The database brings together patent information with a number of other metrics and indicators on drug discovery DBFs in Denmark, Sweden and Norway (Dahlgren, Jensen, & Valentin 2004; Valentin et al., 2007).
The “Act on inventions at public research institutions” of 2 June 1999 may be accessed at http://www.videnskabsministeriet.dk/cgi-bin/doc-show.cgi?doc_id=14206&leftmenu=LOVSTOF. An English translation is available at http://www.videnskabsministeriet.dk/cgi-bin/doc-show.cgi?doc_id=20047&doc_type=22&leftmenu=1.
These terms correspond well the typical set-up for industry sponsorship of academic life-science research as identified in more comprehensive surveys, when we correct for the inclusion in the latter also of more short-term research issues (Blumenthal, Causino, Campbell, & Seashore, 1996).
University of Copenhagen, University of Southern Denmark, Technical university of Denmark, University of Aarhus, The Royal Danish School of Pharmacy.
I.e. excluding patents in process technologies, tools, devices etc. comprising an additional large number of patents particularly from Novo Nordisk.
This information is extracted from SCANBIT, which comprises a full identification of the founder teams behind Scandinavian DBFs engaged in drug discovery.
Sampled from the total of 25,400 university scientists who had received grant from the Engineering and Physical Research Council between 1999 and 2003.
References
Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. M. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 44–60.
Allansdottir, A., Bonaccorsi, A., Gambardella, A., Mariani, M., Orsenigo, L., Pammolli, F., & Riccaboni, M. (2002). Innovation and competitiveness in European biotechnology. Enterprise Papers/7, Enterprise Directorate-General, European Commission, Bruxelles.
Balconi, M., Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2004). Networks of inventors and the role of academia: An exploration of Italian patent data. Research Policy, 33(1), 127–145.
Blumenthal, D., Causino, N., Campbell, E. G., & Seashore, K. (1996). Relationships between academic institutions and industry in the life sciences—an industry survey. New England Journal of Medicine, 334(6), 368–374.
Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Montobbio, F. (2005). The scientific productivity of academic inventors: New evidence from Italian data. CESPRI Working Papers, CESPRI, Centre for Research on Innovation and Internationalisation, Universita’ Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
Calvert, J., & Patel, P. (2003). University-industry research collaborations in the UK: Bibliometric trends. Science and Public Policy, 30(2), 85–96.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation—the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Cockburn I., Henderson R. M., Orsenigo L., & Pisano, G. P. (1999). Pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. In D. C., Mowery (Ed.), US industry in 2000: Studies in competitive performance (pp. 363–398). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Cohen, W. M. (2004). Patents and appropriation: Concerns and evidence. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1–2), 57–71.
Crespi, G., Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. (2005). Labour mobility from academia to business. In Proceedings of the DRUID summer conference, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, 27–29 June 2005.
D’Este, P., & Patel, P. (2005). University–Industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors determining the variety of interactions with industry? In Proceedings of the DRUID summer conference, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, 27–29 June 2005.
Dahlgren, H., Jensen, R. L., & Valentin, F. (2004). Heterogeneity of intellectual assets—a method for identification and measurement with patent data. Biotech Business Working Paper, Research Centre on Biotech Business.
David P. A., Mowery D. C., & Steinmueller, W. E. (1994). Analyzing the economic payoffs from basic research. In D. C., Mowery (Ed.), Science and technology policy in interdependent economies (pp. 57–78). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Davis, L. N., & Lotz, P. (2006). University researchers selfconception: Why interact with business? In Proceedings of the 2nd EISM workshop on the process of reform of university systems, Venice, 4–6 May 2006.
Dodgson, M., Gann, D. M., & Salter, A. J. (2005). Think, play, do: Innovation, technology, and organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fuchs, G. (2003). Biotechnology in comparative perspective. London: Routledge.
Hagedoorn, J., & van Kranenburg, H. (2003). Growth patterns in R&D partnerships: An exploratory statistical study. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(4), 517–531.
Helpman E., & Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Diffusion of general purpose technologies. In E., Helpman (Ed.), General purpose technologies and economic growth (pp. 85–119). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Jaffe, A. B., & Lerner, G. (2004). Innovation and its discontinents: How our broken patent system is endangering innovation and progress and what to do about it. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jong, S. (2006). How organizational structures in science shape spin-off firms: the biochemistry departments of Berkeley, Stanford, and UCSF and the birth of the biotech industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 15(2), 251–283.
Laroia, G., & Laroia, G. (2005). Managing drug discovery alliances for success. Research Technology Management, 48(5), 42–50.
Leaf, C. (2005). The law of unintended consequences. Fortune, 152(6). http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/09/19/8272884/index.htm
Liebeskind, J. P., Oliver, A. L., Zucker, L. G., & Brewer, M. B. (1996). Social networks, learning and flexibility: Sourcing scientific knowledge in new biotechnology firms. Organization Science, 7(4), 428–443.
Llerena, P., Matt, M., & Schaeffer, V. (2003). The evolution of French research policies and the impacts on the universities and public research organizations. In A., Geuna, A., Salter, & W. E., Steinmueller (Eds.), Science and innovation (pp. 147–168). Rethinking the Rationales for Funding and Governance, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
McGguire, S. (2004). Science and savvy. Sweden: A culture of innovation breeds biotech start-ups: Newsweek, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5457070/site/newsweek/
Meyer, M. (2003). Academic patents as an indicator of useful research? A new approach to measure academic inventiveness. Research Evaluation, 12(1), 17–27.
Meyer-Krahmer, F., & Schmoch, U. (1998). Science-based technologies: University-industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy, 27(8), 835–851.
Mowery D., Nelson R. R., Sampat B. N., & Ziedonis A. A. (Eds.), (2004). Ivory tower and industrial innovation: Univerity-industry technology before and after the bayh-dole act. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Owen-Smith, J., Riccaboni, M., Pammolli, F., & Powell, W. W. (2002). A comparison of US and European university-industry relations in the life sciences. Management Science, 48(1), 244–43.
Powell, W. W. (1998). Learning from collaboration: Knowledge and networks in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. California Management Review, 40(3), 228–240.
Rosenberg, N. (1994). Science-technology-economy interactions. In O. Granstrand (Ed.), Economics of technology (pp. 323–337). Amsterdam: North Holland.
Rosenberg, N. (2000). Schumpeter and the endogeneity of technology—some American perspectives. London: Routledge.
Santos, F. M. (2003). The coevolution of firms and their knowledge environment: Insights from the pharmaceutical industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70(7), 687–715.
Saragossi, S., & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2003). What patent data reveal about universities: The case of Belgium. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 47–51.
Schmoch, U. (2000). Wissens—und technologietransfer aus offentlichen einrichtungen im spiegel von patent—und publikationsindikatoren. In U. Schmoch, G. Licht, & R. Michael (Eds.), Wissens—und technologietransfer in deutschland (pp. 17–37). Stuttgardt: Frauenhofer IRB Verlag.
Slowinski, G., & Sagal, M. W. (2006). Allocating patent rights in collaborative research agreements. Research Technology Management, 49(1), 51–59.
SOU (2006). Nyttiggörande av högskoleuppfinningar. Utredningen om rätten till resultaten av högskoleforskningen, SOU 2005:95. Statens offentliga utredningar, Stockholm: SOU.
Thomke, S. H. (2003). Experimentation matters. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Valentin, F. (2000). Danske virksomheders brug af offentlig forskning. En casebaseret undersøgelse, Copenhagen: Danmarks Forskningsråd.
Valentin, F., & Jensen, R. L. (2003). Discontinuities and distributed innovation—the case of biotechnology in food processing. Industry and Innovation, 10(3), 275–310.
Valentin, F., & Jensen, R. L. (2003). Pushing the envelope. Self-organised selective involvement of university scientiests in industrial biotechnology. In Proceedings of the conference in memory of Keith Pavitt, SPRU, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK, 13–15 November 2003.
Valentin, F., & Jensen, R. L. (2004). Networks and technology systems in science-driven fields. The case of European biotechnology in food ingredients. In J., Laage-Hellman, M., McKelvey, & A., Rickne (Eds.), The economic dynamics of modern biotechnologies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Valentin, F., Jensen, R. L., & Dahlgren, H. (2007). Research strategies in science-based start-ups. Effects on performance in Danish and Swedish biotechnology. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 19, (forthcoming).
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Henrik Lando of CBS for useful comments and suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Valentin, F., Jensen, R.L. Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights. J Technol Transfer 32, 251–276 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-006-9015-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-006-9015-x