Skip to main content
Log in

Akademische Patente und ihre Auswirkungen auf Forschung, Lehre und Administration an Universitäten

  • State-of-the-Art
  • Published:
Management Review Quarterly Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Angesichts der gestiegenen Bedeutung von gewerblichen Schutzrechten sowie der Abschaffung des Hochschullehrerprivilegs in vielen Ländern sind Universitäten zunehmend an der Anmeldung der Erfindungen ihrer Wissenschaftler als akademische Patente interessiert. Das kann vielfältige Auswirkungen auf Forschung, Lehre und Administration an einer Universität haben. Dieser Literaturüberblick führt in das Thema ein, integriert bisherige Untersuchungen zu solchen Implikationen zu einem Gesamtbild und zeigt dabei Komplementaritäten, aber auch Widersprüche auf. Er kann damit Ausgangspunkt für weiterführende Arbeiten sein, die sich mit betriebswirtschaftlichen Forschungsfragen, etwa zur Etablierung von Technologietransferbüros oder der Schaffung von effektiven Anreizstrukturen für die beteiligten Akteure, beschäftigen.

Abstract

Given the increasing relevance of intellectual property rights as well as the abolition of the professors’ privilege in many countries, universities are becoming more interested in filing the inventions of their scientists as academic patents. This may have various implications on research, teaching, and/or administration at universities. The literature review at hand provides an introduction to the field, combines previous studies to create an overall picture, and discusses both complementarities and disagreements between these works. It may thus serve as an entry point for further research on managerial issues such as the establishment of technology transfer offices or the setting up of effective incentive structures for stakeholders.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. Da eine geschlechtergerechte Parallelformulierung (“Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler”) den Lesefluss stört, wird im Weiteren das gebräuchliche generische Maskulinum verwendet. Für eine Diskussion möglicher Unterschiede zwischen Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftlern beim Patentieren vgl. Ding et al. (2006) oder Azoulay et al. (2007).

  2. Unter “akademischen Patenten” werden im Folgenden Patente verstanden, in denen zumindest ein Wissenschaftler, der zum Zeitpunkt der Erfindung an einer Hochschule beschäftigt war, als Erfinder genannt ist, und zwar unabhängig davon, ob ein Patent teilweise oder ganz dem/den Wissenschaftler/n, einem Unternehmen, der Hochschule oder einer anderen Forschungseinrichtung bzw. Organisation gehört (analog zur Definition von u.a. Dornbusch et al. 2013).

  3. Als Suchbegriffe wurden “Akademische Patente”, “Technologietransfer”, “Technologietransferzentrum”, “Hochschullehrerprivileg”, “academic patent”, “technology transfer”, “technology transfer office” sowie “Bayh–Dole Act”, in Abwandlungen, alleine oder in Kombination miteinander bzw. mit dem Begriff “Universität” resp. “university”, verwendet.

  4. Dabei zeigt sich übrigens, dass mitunter nicht alle Autoren aus den Journalpublikationen auch als Erfinder in den zugrunde liegenden Patentschriften aufscheinen (vgl. dazu die Studien von Ducor 2000, Haeussler und Sauermann 2013 und Lissoni et al. 2013a), was Auswirkungen haben wird, wenn erfolgreiche Patentanmeldungen vergleichbares Renommee bringen sollten wie Publikationserfolge.

  5. Darunter werden im Folgenden alle Organisationseinheiten für Zwecke des Technologietransfers—insbesondere, wenn sie sich um akademische Patente kümmern—subsumiert (etwa Technologietransferstellen u.a.m.). In Anlehnung an das “Technology Transfer Office” aus dem englischen Sprachgebrauch wird das in der Literatur gebräuchliche Kürzel “TTO” genutzt.

  6. Aus einem Vortrag von Bercovitz am Workshop “Beyond spillovers? Channels and effects of knowledge transfer from universities” an der Universität Kassel, bei dem sie auch von Interviews mit TTO-Mitarbeitern an US-Universitäten berichtet hat.

Literatur

  • Agrawal A, Henderson R (2002) Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Manag Sci 48(1):44–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyres NS, Liebskind JP (1998) Privatizing the intellectual commons: universities and the commercialization of biotechnology research. J Econ Behav Org 35(4):427–454

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Azagra Caro JM, Fernández de Lucio I, Gutiérrez Gracia A (2003) University patents: output and input indicators \(\ldots \) of what? Res Eval 12(1):5–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Azoulay P, Ding W, Stuart T (2007) The determinants of faculty patenting behavior: demographics or opportunities? J Econ Behav Org 63(4):599–623

    Google Scholar 

  • Azoulay P, Ding W, Stuart T (2009) The impact of academic patenting on the rate, quality and direction of public research output. J Ind Econ 57(4):637–676

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldini N (2009) Implementing Bayh–Dole-like laws: faculty problems and their impact on university patenting activity. Res Policy 38(8):1217–1224

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldini N (2010) Do royalties really foster university patenting activity? An answer from Italy. Technovation 30(2):109–116

    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. Res Policy 35(4):518–532

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldini N, Grimaldi R, Sobrero M (2007) To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics 70(2):333–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz J, Feldman M, Feller I, Burton R (2001) Organizational structure as a determinant of academic patent and licensing behavior: an exploratory study of Duke, John Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities. J Technol Transf 26(1/2):21–35

  • Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Anderson MS, Causino NA, Louis KS (1997) Withholding research results in academic life science: evidence from a national survey of faculty. J Am Med Assoc 277(15):1224–1228

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Causino NA, Louis KS (1996) Participation of life science faculty in research relationships with industry. N Engl J Med 335(23):1734–1739

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumenstyk (1999) How one university pursued profit from science—and won. Chronicle of Higher Education vom 12. Februar

  • Breschi S, Lissoni F, Montobbio F (2008) University patenting and scientific productivity: a quantitative study of Italian academic inventors. Eur Manag Rev 5(2):91–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Buenstorf G (2009) Is commercialization good or bad for science? Individual-level evidence from the Max Planck Society. Res Policy 38(2):281–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Buenstorf G, Geissler M (2012) Not invented here: technology licensing, knowledge transfer and innovation based on public research. J Evol Econ 22(3):481–511

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulut H, Moschini G (2009) US universities’ net returns from patenting and licensing: a quantile regression analysis. Econ Innov New Technol 18(2):123–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Calderini M, Franzoni C, Vezzulli A (2007) If star scientists do not patent: the effect of productivity, basicness and impact on the decision to patent in the academic world. Res Policy 36(3):303–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Callaert J, Du Plessis M, van Looy B, Debackere K (2013) The impact of academic technology: do modes of involvement matter? The Flemish case. Ind Innov 20(5):456–472

  • Campbell EG, Weissman JS, Causino N, Blumenthal D (2000) Data withholding in academic medicine: characteristics of faculty denied access to research results and biomaterials. Res Policy 29(2):303–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayol N (2007) Academic incentives, research organization and patenting at a large French university. Econ Innov New Technol 16(2):119–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayol N, Matt M (2004) Individual and collective determinants of academic scientist’ productivity? Laboratory level evidence from a large European university. Res Policy 33(8):1081–1102

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson B, Fridh AC (2002) Technology transfer in United States universities: a survey and statistical analysis. J Evol Econ 12(1):199–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang YC, Yang P (2008) The impacts of academic patenting and licensing on knowledge production and diffusion: a test of the anti-commons effect in Taiwan. R&D Manag 38(3):321–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapple W, Lockett A, Siegel DS, Wright M (2005) Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: parametric and non-parametric evidence. Res Policy 34(3):369–384

    Google Scholar 

  • Colyvas J, Crow M, Gelijns A, Mazzoleni R, Nelson RR, Rosenberg N, Sampat BN (2002) How do university inventions get into practice? Manag Sci 48(1):61–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Coupé T (2003) Science is golden: academic R&D and university patents. J Technol Transf 28(1):31–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Crespi G, D’Este P, Fontana R, Geuna A (2011) The impact of academic patenting on university research and its transfer. Res Policy 40(1):55–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Crespi G, Geuna A, Nesta L (2007) The mobility of university inventors in Europe. J Technol Transf 32(3):195–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Czarnitzki D, Glänzel W, Hussinger K (2009) Heterogeneity of patenting activity and its implications for scientific research. Res Policy 38(1):26–34

    Google Scholar 

  • David PA (2004) Can ‘Open Science’ be protected from the evolving regime of IPR protections? J Inst Theor Econ 160(1):9–34

    Google Scholar 

  • De Juan V (2002) Comparative study of technology transfer practices in Europe and the United States. J Assoc Univ Technol Managers 14:31–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Debackere K, Veugelers R (2005) The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links: university-based technology initiatives. Res Policy 34(3):321–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Del Barrio-Castro T, García-Quevedo J (2009) The determinants of university patenting: Do incentives matter? Arbeitspapier, Barcelona Institute of Economics

  • Della Malva A, Lissoni F, Llerena P (2013) Institutional change and academic patenting: French universities and the Innovation Act of 1999. J Evol Econ 23(1):211–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Ding WW, Murray F, Stuart TE (2006) Gender differences in patenting in the academic life sciences. Science 313(5787):665–667

    Google Scholar 

  • Dornbusch F, Schmoch U, Schulze N, Bethke N (2013) Identification of university-based patents: a new large-scale approach. Res Eval 22(1):52–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Ducor P (2000) Intellectual property: coauthorship and coinventorship. Science 289(5481):873–875

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz H (1998) The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages. Res Policy 27(8):823–833

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabrizio KR, Di Minin A (2008) Commercializing the laboratory: faculty patenting and the open science environment. Res Policy 37(5):914–931

    Google Scholar 

  • Foltz J, Barham B, Kim K (2000) Universities and agricultural biotechnology patent production. Agribusiness 16(1):82–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Forti E, Franzoni C, Sobrero M (2013) Bridges or isolates? Investigating social networks of academic inventors. Res Policy 42(8):1378–1388

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzoni C, Scellato G (2010) The grace period in international patent law and its effect on the timing of disclosure. Res Policy 39(2):200–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman J, Silberman J (2003) University technology transfer: do incentives, management and location matter? J Technol Transf 28(1):17–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Geuna A, Nesta LJ (2006) University patenting and its effects on academic research: the emerging European evidence. Res Policy 35(6):790–807

    Google Scholar 

  • Geuna A, Rossi F (2011) Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting. Res Policy 40(8):1068–1076

    Google Scholar 

  • Gluck ME, Blumenthal D, Stoto MA (1987) University–industry relations in the life sciences: implications for students and post-doctoral fellows. Res Policy 16(6):327–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Giuri P, Munari F, Pasquini M (2013) What determines university patent commercialization? Empirical evidence on the role of IPR ownership. Ind Innov 20(5):488–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Göktepe-Hulten D, Mahagaonkar P (2010) Inventing and patenting activities of scientists: in the expectation of money or reputation? J Technol Transf 35(4):401–423

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldfarb B, Henrekson M (2003) Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Res Policy 32(4):639–658

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldfarb B, Marschke G, Smith A (2009) Scholarship and innovative activity in the university: complements or substitutes? Econ Innov New Technol 18(8):743–756

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzáles-Pernia JL, Kuechle G, Pena-Legazkue I (2013) An assessment of the determinants of university technology transfer. Econ Dev Q 27(1):6–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm H, Jaenicke J (2012) What drives patenting and commerzialisation activity at East German universities? The role of new public policy, institutional environment and individual prior knowledge. J Technol Transf 37(4):454–477

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimpe C, Fier H (2010) Informal university technology transfer: a comparison between the United States and Germany. J Technol Transf 35(6):637–650

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulbrandsen M (2004) ‘But Peter’s in it for the money’: the liminality of entrepreneurial scientists. VEST J Sci Technol Stud 18(1/2):49–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Haeussler C, Sauermann H (2013) Credit where credit is due? The impact of project contributions and social factors on authorship and inventorship. Res Policy 42(3):688–703

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall BH, Harhoff D (2012) Recent research on the economics of patents. Ann Rev Econ 4:541–565

    Google Scholar 

  • Harhoff D, Narin F, Scherer FM, Vopel K (1999) Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. Rev Econ Stat 81(3):511–515

    Google Scholar 

  • Harhoff D, Scherer FM, Vopel K (2003) Citations, family size, opposition, and the value of patent rights. Res Policy 32(8):1343–1364

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausberg B, Becker C, Ekert S, Glitz R, Krux M, Stahl-Rolf S (2001) Zur Einführung der Neuheits- schonfrist im Patentrecht: Ein USA-Deutschland-Vergleich bezogen auf den Hochschulbereich. VDI-Schlussbericht zu BMBF-Projekt, Düsseldorf

  • Heller MA, Eisenberg RS (1998) Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280(5364):698–701

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellman T (2007) The role of patents for bridging the science to market gap. J Econ Behav Org 63(4):624–647

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson R, Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M (1998) Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting 1965–1998. Rev Econ Stat 80(1):119–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Hottenrott H, Lawson C (2014) Research grants, sources of ideas and the effects on academic research. Econ Innov New Technol 23(2):109–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Hülsbeck M, Lehmann EE, Starnecker A (2013) Performance of technology transfer offices in Germany. J Technol Transf 38(3):199–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe AB (1989) Real effects of academic research. Am Econ Rev 79(5):975–970

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe AB (2000) The US patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process. Res Policy 29(4):531–557

  • Jain S, George G, Maltarich M (2009) Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Res Policy 38(6):922–935

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen RA, Thursby MC (2001) Proofs and prototypes for sale: the licensing of university inventions. Am Econ Rev 91(1):240–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen R, Thursby JG, Thursby MC (2003) Disclosure and licensing of university inventions: the best we can do with the s**t we get to work with. Int J Ind Org 21(9):1271–1300

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenney M (1987) The ethical dilemma of university–industry collaborations. J Bus Ethics 6(2):127–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenney M, Patton D (2011) Does inventor ownership encourage university research-derived entrepreneurship? A six university comparison. Res Policy 40(8):1100–1112

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilger C, Bartenbach K (2002) New rules for German professors. Science 298(5596):1173–1175

    Google Scholar 

  • Lach S, Schankerman M (2008) Incentives and invention in universities. Rand J Econ 39(2):403–433

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam A (2011) What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Res Policy 40(10):1354–1368

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson C (2013) Academic patenting: the importance of industry support. J Technol Transf 38(4):509–535

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee YS (1996) ‘Technology transfer’ and the research university: a search for the bounderies of university–industry collaboration. Res Policy 25(6):843–863

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee YS (2000) The sustainability of university–industry research collaboration: an empirical assessment. J Technol Transf 25(2):111–1333

    Google Scholar 

  • Lei Z, Juneja R, Wright BD (2009) Patents versus patenting: implications of intellectual property protection for biological research. Nat Biotechnol 27(1):36–40

  • Lin M-W, Bozeman B (2006) Researcher’s industry experience and productivity in university–industry research centres: a “scientific and technical human capital” explanation. J Technol Transf 31(2):269–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Link AN, Siegel DS, Bozeman B (2007) An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Ind Corp Change 16(4):641–655

    Google Scholar 

  • Lissoni F (2010) Academic inventors as brokers. Res Policy 39(7):843–857

    Google Scholar 

  • Lissoni F (2013) Academic patenting in Europe: a reassessment of evidence and research practices. Ind Innov 20(5):379–384

    Google Scholar 

  • Lissoni F, Llerena P, McKelvey M, Sanditov B (2008) Academic patenting in Europe: new evidence from the KEINS database. Res Eval 16(2):87–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Lissoni F, Montobbio F, Zirulia L (2013a) Inventorship and authorship as attribution rights: an enquiry into the economics of scientific credit. J Econ Behav Org 95:49–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Lissoni F, Pezzoni M, Poti B, Romagnosi S (2013b) University autonomy, the professor privilege and academic patenting: Italy, 1996–2007. Ind Innov 20(5):399–421

    Google Scholar 

  • Ljungberg D, Bourelos E, McKelvey M (2013) Academic inventors, technological profiles and patent value: an analysis of academic patents owned by Swedish-based firms. Ind Innov 20(5):473–487

    Google Scholar 

  • Louis KS, Jones LM, Anderson MS, Blumenthal D, Campbell EG (2001) Entrepreneurship, secrecy, and productivity: a comparison of clinical and non-clinical life sciences faculty. J Technol Transf 26(3):233–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubango LM, Pouris A (2010) Is patenting of technical inventions in industry sectors impending the flow of scientific knowledge to the public? A case study of South Africa. Technol Soc 32(3):241–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Macho-Stadler I, Pérez-Castrillo D, Veugelers R (2007) Licensing of university inventions: the role of a technology transfer office. Int J Ind Org 25(3):483–510

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield E (1998) Academic research and industrial innovation: an update of empirical findings. Res Policy 26(7/8):773–776

    Google Scholar 

  • Markman GD, Gianiodis PT, Phan PH, Balkin DB (2005) Innovation speed: transferring university technology to market. Res Policy 34(7):1058–1075

    Google Scholar 

  • Markman GD, Gianiodis PT, Phan PH (2008a) Full-time faculty or part-time entrepreneurs. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 55(1):29–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Markman GD, Siegel DS, Wright M (2008b) Research and technology commercialisation. J Manag Stud 45(8):1401–1423

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall E (2000a) Patent suit pits postdoc against former mentor. Science 287(5462):2399–2401

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall E (2000b) Property claims: a deluge of patents creates legal hassles for research. Science 288(5464):255–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez C, Azagra-Caro JM, Maraut S (2013) Academic inventors, scientific impact and the institutionalisation of Pasteur’s Quadrant in Spain. Ind Innov 20(5):438–455

    Google Scholar 

  • Maurer SM (2006) Inside the anticommons: academic scientists’ struggle to build a commercially self-supporting human mutations database, 1999–2001. Res Policy 35(6):839–853

    Google Scholar 

  • May C (2006) Patents, universities and the provision of social goods in the information society. Ethical Perspect 13(2):289–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Mejer M (2012) Essays on patent systems and academic patenting. Dissertationsschrift, Université Libre de Bruxelles

  • Merton RK (1968) The Matthew effect in science: the reward and communication systems of science reconsidered. Science 159(3810):56–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer M (2003) Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial academics? Research-based ventures and public support mechanisms. R&D Manag 33(2):107–113

    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. Res Policy 35(10):1646–1662

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery DC, Nelson RR, Sampat BN, Ziedonis AA (2001) The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980. Res Policy 30(1):99–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery DC, Thompson N, Ziedonis AA (2014) Does university licensing facilitate or restrict the flow of knowledge and research inputs among scientists? Arbeitspapier präsentiert am Workshop “Beyond spillovers? Channels and effects of knowledge transfer from universities”, Universität Kassel

  • Mowery DC, Ziedonis AA (2002) Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh–Dole Act in the United States. Res Policy 31(3):399–418

    Google Scholar 

  • Muscio A (2010) What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy. J Technol Transf 35(2):181–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray F, Stern S (2007) Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. J Econ Behav Org 63(4):648–687

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson RR (2004) The market economy and the scientific commons. Res Policy 33(3):455–471

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2003) Turning science into business: patenting and licensing at public research organisations. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris

  • Owen-Smith J, Powell WW (2001) To patent or not: faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. J Technol Transf 26(1/2):99–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith J, Powell WW (2003) The expanding role of university patenting in the life science: assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Res Policy 32(9):1695–1711

    Google Scholar 

  • Odza M (1996) Big winners in university tech transfer: and the winners are... Technol Access Rep 9(4):1–4

  • Penin J (2010) On the consequences of patenting university research: lessons from a survey of French academic inventors. Ind Innov 17(5):445–468

  • Ranga LM, Debackere K, von Tunzelmann N (2003) Entrepreneurial universities and the dynamics of academic knowledge production: a case study of basic vs. applied research in Belgium. Scientometrics 58(2):301–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers EM, Yin Y, Hoffmann J (2000) Assessing the effectiveness of technology transfer offices at U.S. research universities. J Assoc Univ Technol Managers 12:47–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg N, Nelson RR (1994) American universities and technical advance in industry. Res Policy 23(3):323–348

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel FT, Agung SD, Jiang L (2007) University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature. Ind Corp Change 16(4):691–791

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampat BN (2006) Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: the world before and after Bayh-Dole. Res Policy 35(6):772–789

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampat BN, Mowery DC, Ziedonis AA (2003) Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh-Dole act: a re-examination. Int J Ind Org 21(9):1371–1390

    Google Scholar 

  • Saragossi S, van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B (2003) What patent data reveal about universities: the case of Belgium. J Technol Transf 28(1):47–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer FM, Harhoff D (2000) Technology policy for a world of skew-distributed outcomes. Res Policy 29(4/5):559–566

    Google Scholar 

  • Schibany A (2002) Die Rolle von geistigen Eigentumsrechten im Hochschulsektor: Eine vergleichende Analyse. Arbeitspapier, Joanneum Research, Wien

  • Schibany A, Streicher G, Nones B (2008) Geistige Eigentumsrechte an Hochschulen: Evaluierung des Programms uni:invent (2004–2006). Arbeitspapier, Joanneum Research, Wien

  • Schöck TAH (2004) Erfindungen, Patente und Wissenstransfer an Hochschulen. In: Wagner H, Fisch R (Hrsg) Patentverwertung in Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft nach Wegfall des Hochschullehrerprivilegs. Bonn, 23–30

  • Schoen A, Buenstorf G (2013) When do universities own their patents? An explorative study of patent characteristics and organizational determinants in Germany. Ind Innov 20(5):422–437

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoen A, van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B, Henkel J (2014) Governance typology of universities’ technology transfer processes. J Technol Transf 39(3):435–453

    Google Scholar 

  • Sellenthin M (2009) Technology transfer offices and university patenting in Sweden and Germany. J Technol Transf 34(6):603–620

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro C (2001) Navigating the patent thicket: cross licenses, patent pools, and standard setting. In: Jaffe AB, Lerner J, Stern S (eds) Innovation policy and the economy, vol 1. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 119–150

  • Siegel DS, Waldman D, Link A (2003a) Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Res Policy 32(1):27–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel DS, Waldman DA, Atwater LE, Link AN (2003b) Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. J High Technol Manag Res 14(1):111–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter S, Campbell T, Holleman M, Morgan E (2002) The ‘traffic’ in graduate students: graduate students as tokens of exchange between academe and industry. Sci Technol Hum Values 27(2):282–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan PE (2001) Educational implications of university–industry technology transfer. J Technol Transf 26(3):199–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan PE, Gurmu S, Sumell AJ, Black G (2007) Who’s patenting in the university? Evidence from the survey of doctorate recipients. Econ Innov New Technol 16(2):71–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan PE, Levin SG (1996) Property rights and entrepreneurship in science. Small Bus Econ 8(3):177–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterckx S (2011) Patenting and licensing of university research: promoting innovation or undermining academic values? Sci Eng Ethics 17(1):45–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Tartari V, Perkmann M, Salter A (2014) In good company: the influence of peers on industry engagement by academic scientists. Res Policy 43(7):1189–1203

    Google Scholar 

  • Thursby J, Fuller AW, Thursby M (2009) US faculty patenting: inside and outside the university. Res Policy 38(1):14–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Thursby JG, Jensen R, Thursby MC (2001) Objectives, characteristics and outcome of university licensing: a survey of major U.S. universities. J Technol Transf 26(1/2):59–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Thursby M, Thursby J, Gupta-Mukherjee S (2007) Are there real effects of licensing on academic research? A life cycle view. J Econ Behav Org 63(4):577–598

    Google Scholar 

  • Toole A, Czarnitzki D (2010) Commercializing science: is there a university brain drain from academic entrepreneurship? Manag Sci 56(9):1599–1614

    Google Scholar 

  • USPTO (2014) Calendar year patent statistics. http://www.uspto.gov/about/stats/. Accessed on 15 March 2014

  • Van Eecke P, Kelly J, Bolger P, Truyens M (2009) Monitoring and analysis of technology transfer and intellectual property regimes and their use. Arbeitspapier, European Commission (DG Research)

  • Van Looy B, Callaert J, Debackere K (2006) Publication and patent behavior of academic researchers: conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing? Res Policy 35(4):596–608

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Overwalle G (2006) Reconciling patent policies with the university mission. Ethical Perspect 13(2):231–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Verspagen B (2006) University research, intellectual property rights and European innovation systems. J Econ Surv 20(4):607–632

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Proff S (2011) Patent and publication productivity of German professors: a life cycle view. Int J Technol Transf Commer 10(3/4):392–410

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Proff S, Buenstorf G, Hummel M (2012) University patenting in Germany before and after 2002: what role did the professors’ privilege play? Ind Innov 19(1):23–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallmark (1997) Inventions and patents at universities: the case of Chalmers University of Technology. Technovation 17(3):127–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh JP, Cho C, Cohen WM (2005) View from the bench: patents and material transfer. Science 309(5743):2002–2003

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh JP, Cohen WM, Cho C (2007) Where excludability matters: material versus intellectual property in academic biomedical research. Res Policy 36(8):1184–1203

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong PK, Singh A (2010) University patenting activities and their link to the quantity and quality of scientific publications. Scientometrics 83(1):271–294

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Inspiriert worden ist die Themenstellung dieses Beitrags insbesondere durch die Zusammenarbeit mit Kollegen aus vierzehn Ländern im Rahmen des Research Network Programme “Academic Patenting in Europe (APE-INV)” der European Science Foundation (ESF), zu dessen Finanzierung auch der Fonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (FWF) beigetragen hat. Für wertvolle inhaltliche Anregungen zur Überarbeitung des Beitrags sind wir zudem zwei anonymen Gutachtern zu Dank verpflichtet. Schließlich danken wir Martina Darkow für die Unterstützung bei der Suche nach noch verbliebenen Austriazismen.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Stummer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Backs, S., Stummer, C. Akademische Patente und ihre Auswirkungen auf Forschung, Lehre und Administration an Universitäten. Manag Rev Q 65, 35–68 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-014-0107-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-014-0107-7

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

JEL Klassifikation

Navigation