Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Determinants of national patent ownership by public research organisations and universities

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper focuses on the question of whether the national production functions of patents owned by universities and public research organisations (PROs) differ. We use Eurostat patent and R&D data broken down by institutional sector for the European Union 27 and other countries in years 1982–2007, and we estimate dynamic panel models. The impact of R&D expenditure on patent ownership is higher for PROs than for universities. University patent ownership activity is dependent on business funding, while PRO patent ownership is not. We recommend a reversal of the current decline of PRO R&D expenditure and discuss whether PROs perform better at macroeconomic level vis a vis universities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Although there is no consensus on the extent (Ponomariov 2007; Yang and Chang 2010), and the positive relation is clearer in North America than in other geographical areas (Wong and Singh 2009).

  2. This is not to imply that it takes 1 year between R&D spending and applying for a patent, since the possibilities are enormous. The assumption is that 1-year-lagged R&D expenditure is a good enough predictor of what will happen to patents in the next period, because 1-year-old R&D expenditure already incorporates information from older R&D expenditure. In addition, most studies dealing with the R&D-patent relationship use a 1-year lagged value of R&D expenditure, probably because of its quite contemporaneous relation with patents (Hall et al. 1986).

  3. We have also run standard panel regression techniques, with time dummies instead of a trend, and models with autocorrelation, all with similar results.

  4. Of course, this ratio is not a perfect measure, but there are no data on number academic-invented patents for the time and geographic scope we analyse. The closest attempt to generating these data is Crespi et al. (2010) for 6 European countries. Their measure of university-invented patents correlates perfectly with ours and produces the same national ranking, so it gives some validity to our proxy. However, the correlation, although lower, is negative and still high in the case of PROs, and the national ranking is substantially different, which makes us cautious about using our proxy for the conclusions.

  5. According to Eurostat data, for PROs, and as opposed to universities, R&D is decreasing in real terms (the growth rate between 1981 and 2006 was −24 %).

References

  • Acosta, D., Coronado, D., León, M. D., & Martínez, M. (2008). Production of university technological knowledge in European regions: Evidence from patent data. Regional Studies, 43(9), 1167–1181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acosta, D., Coronado, D., & Martínez, M. (2012). Spatial differences in the quality of university patenting: Do regions matter? Research Policy, 41(9), 692–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ankrah, S. N., Burgess, T. F., Grimshaw, P., & Shaw, N. E. (2013). Asking both university and industry actors about their engagement in knowledge transfer: What single-group studies of motives omit. Technovation, 33, 50–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies, 58, 277–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arvanitis, S., Kubli, U., & Woerter, M. (2008). University-industry knowledge and technology transfer in Switzerland: What university scientists think about co-operation with private enterprises. Research Policy, 37, 1865–1883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azagra Caro, J. M., Fernández de Lucio, I., & Gutiérrez Gracia, A. (2003). University patents: Output and input indicators… of what? Research Evaluation, 12(1), 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azagra-Caro, J. M., Archontakis, F., & Yegros–Yegros, A. (2007a). In which regions do universities patent and publish more? Scientometrics, 70(2), 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azagra-Caro, J. M., Carayol, N., & Llerena, P. (2006a). Patent production at a European Research University: Exploratory evidence at the Laboratory Level. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(3), 257–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azagra-Caro, J. M., Plaza-Gómez, L., & Romero-de-Pablos, A. (2007b). The origin of public research organisation patents: An economic approach. Research Evaluation, 16(4), 271–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azagra-Caro, J. M., Yegros–Yegros, A., & Archontakis, F. (2006b). What do university patent routes indicate at regional level? Scientometrics, 66(1), 219–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bach, L., & Llerena, P. (2007). Indicators of higher-education institutes and public-research organizations technology transfer activities: Insights from France. Science and Public Policy, 34(10), 709–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldini, N. (2006a). The Act on inventions at public research institutions: Danish universities’ patenting activity. Scientometrics, 69(2), 387–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldini, N. (2006b). University patenting and licensing activity: A review of the literature. Research Evaluation, 15(3), 197–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldini, N. (2009). Implementing Bayh-Dole-like laws: Faculty problems and their impact on University patenting activity. Research Policy, 38(8), 1217–1224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldini, N. (2010). Do royalties really foster university patenting activity? An answer from Italy. Technovation, 30, 109–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2006). Institutional changes and the commercialization of academic knowledge: A study of Italian universities’ patenting activities between 1965 and 2002. Research Policy, 35, 518–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Montobbio, F. (2008). University patenting and scientific productivity: A quantitative study of Italian academic inventors. European Management Review, 5, 91–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buenstorf, G. (2009). Is commercialization good or bad for science? Individual-level evidence from the Max Planck Society. Research Policy, 38, 281–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayol, N. (2007). Academic incentives, research organization and patenting at a large French university. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(2), 119–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cesaroni, F., & Piccaluga, A. (2005). Universities and intellectual property rights in Southern European Countries. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 17(4), 497–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coupé, T. (2003). Science is golden: Academic R&D and University patents. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 31–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crespi, G. A., Geuna, A., Nomaler, Ö., & Verspagen, B. (2010). University IPRs and knowledge transfer: Is university ownership more efficient? Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 19(7), 627–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czarnitzki, D., Hussinger, K., & Schneider, C. (2012). The nexus between science and industry: Evidence from faculty inventions. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(5), 755–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 316–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, J. S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). Academic careers, patents, and productivity: Industry experience as scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 34(3), 349–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G., Llerena, P., & Labini, M. S. (2006). Science–Technology–Industry links and the ‘European Paradox’: Some notes on the dynamics of scientific and technological research in Europe. In E. H. Lorenz & B.-Å. Lundvall (Eds.), How Europe’s economies learn: Coordinating competing models. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • EC. (2007a). Commission communication ‘Improving knowledge transfer between research institutions and industry across Europe: Embracing open innovation’, COM(2007) 182.

  • EC. (2007b). Commission green paper ‘The European Research Area: New Perspectives’, COM(2007) 161.

  • Gaughan, M., & Corley, E. A. (2010). Science faculty at US research universities: The impacts of university research center-affiliation and gender on industrial activities. Technovation, 30, 215–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A., Llerena, P., Matt, M., & Savona, M. (2004). Collaboration between a research university and firms and other institutions. In F. Cesaroni, A. Gambardella, & W. García-Fontes (Eds.), R&D, innovation, and competitiveness in the European chemical industry, Chap. 6. Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A., & Rossi, F. (2011). Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting. Research Policy, 40, 1068–1076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goel, R., & Rich, D. P. (2005). Organization of markets for science and technology. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 161, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimpe, C., & Fier, H. (2010). Informal university technology transfer: A comparison between the United States and Germany. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(6), 637–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., Griliches, Z., & Hausman, J. A. (1986). Patents and R&D: Is there a lag? International Economic Review, 27(2), 265–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krabel, S., & Mueller, P. (2009). What drives scientists to start their own company? An empirical investigation of Max Planck Society scientists. Research Policy, 38, 947–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lissoni, F., Llerena, P., McKelvey, M., & Sanditov, B. (2008). Academic patenting in Europe: New evidence from the KEINS database. Research Evaluation, 17(2), 87–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marinova, D. (2001). Eastern European patenting activities in the USA. Technovation, 21, 571–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2006). Are patenting scientists the better scholars? An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology. Research Policy, 35(2006), 1646–1662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M., Du Pleiss, M., Tukeva, T., & Utecht, J. T. (2005). Inventive output of academic research: A comparison of two science systems. Scientometrics, 63(1), 145–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moutinho, P. S. F., Fontes, M., & Godinho, M. M. (2007). Do individual factors matter? A survey of scientists’ patenting in Portuguese public research organizations. Scientometrics, 70(2), 355–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Rosenberg, N. (1993). Technical innovation and national systems. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.), National innovation systems, Chap. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, A. S., Rickne, A., & Bengtsson, L. (2010). Transfer of academic research: Uncovering the grey zone. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(6), 617–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Núñez-Sánchez, R., Barge-Gil, A., & Modrego-Rico, A. (2012). Performance of knowledge interactions between public research centres and industrial firms in Spain: A project-level analysis. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37, 330–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2001). Using patent counts for cross-country comparisons of technology output. STI Review 27.

  • Okamuro, H., & Nishimura, J. (2013). Impact of university intellectual property policy on the performance of university-industry research collaboration. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(3), 273–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. (1995). Patterns of technological activity: Their measurement and interpretation. In P. Stoneman (Ed.), Handbook of the economics of innovation and technological change, Chap. 2. UK: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, K. (1998). Do patents reflect the useful research output of universities? Research evaluation, 7(2), 105–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponomariov, B. L. (2007). Effects of university characteristics on scientists’ interactions with the private sector: An exploratory assessment. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(5), 485–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potì, B., & Reale, E. (2005). The patenting regime in the Italian public research system. What motivates public inventors to patent. Ceris-Cnr, Working Paper No. 10/2005.

  • PREST. (2002). A comparative analysis of Public, Semi-Public and Recently Privatised Research Centres, mimeo: ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/indicators/docs/ind_report_prest1.pdf. Last access 20/02/2009.

  • Proton. (2007). The ProTon Europe 2005 Annual Survey report, mimeo: http://www.fptt-pftt.gc.ca/eng/resources/articles/2007/06/ProTonEurope2005.html. Last access 20/02/2009.

  • Van Looy, B., du Plessis, M., & Magerman, T. (2006). Data production methods for harmonized patent indicators: Assignee sector allocation. Luxembourg: Eurostat Working Paper and Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, P. K., & Singh, A. (2009). University patenting activities and their link to the quantity and quality of scientific publications. Scientometrics, 83, 271–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, P. Y., & Chang, Y.-C. (2010). Academic research commercialization and knowledge production and diffusion: The moderating effects of entrepreneurial commitment. Scientometrics, 83, 403–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Unlinked reference

  • Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2002). The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy, 31, 899–933.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research started within the framework of ERAWATCH, a joint initiative of the European Commission’s Directorate General for Research and the Joint Research Centre-Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS). Without the continuous support of René van Bavel and Xabier Goenaga, in the IPTS Knowledge for Growth (KfG) Unit, it would not have been possible to carry it on. Numerous conversations with Pablo D’Este, Sean Kask, Jordi Molas-Gallart, Dimitrios Pontikakis, Francesco Rentocchini and María Rochina were helpful for content and methodological issues. Colleagues from the KfG Unit provided enriching comments during seminar presentations. Attendants at the 3rd Annual Conference of the EPIP Association, the 2nd COMMUNIA Conference and the 2012 European Seminar EuroLIO offered valuable ideas, with a special mention to my discussants Isabel M. Bodas-Freitas and Benjamin Coriat. Martin Meyer gave a helpful hand about institutional concerns. Finally, Jeff Furman and Francesco Lissoni revised former versions of the paper and made extremely profitable comments.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro

    Present address: INGENIO, CSIC-UPV, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022, Valencia, Spain

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Edificio Expo, c/Inca Garcilaso 3, 41092, Sevilla, Spain

    Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro

Authors
  1. Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro.

Additional information

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of the information.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Azagra-Caro, J.M. Determinants of national patent ownership by public research organisations and universities. J Technol Transf 39, 898–914 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9322-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9322-y

Keywords

JEL Codes

Search

Navigation