The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 251–276 | Cite as

Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights

  • Finn Valentin
  • Rasmus Lund Jensen


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.


University technology commercialization Research collaboration Biotechnology 

JEL Classifications

I23 L65 O31 O34 O38 



The authors thank Henrik Lando of CBS for useful comments and suggestions.


  1. Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. M. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 44–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. Calvert, J., & Patel, P. (2003). University-industry research collaborations in the UK: Bibliometric trends. Science and Public Policy, 30(2), 85–96.Google Scholar
  7. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation—the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, W. M. (2004). Patents and appropriation: Concerns and evidence. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1–2), 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. Dodgson, M., Gann, D. M., & Salter, A. J. (2005). Think, play, do: Innovation, technology, and organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fuchs, G. (2003). Biotechnology in comparative perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Laroia, G., & Laroia, G. (2005). Managing drug discovery alliances for success. Research Technology Management, 48(5), 42–50.Google Scholar
  22. Leaf, C. (2005). The law of unintended consequences. Fortune, 152(6). Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. McGguire, S. (2004). Science and savvy. Sweden: A culture of innovation breeds biotech start-ups: Newsweek, Scholar
  26. Meyer, M. (2003). Academic patents as an indicator of useful research? A new approach to measure academic inventiveness. Research Evaluation, 12(1), 17–27.Google Scholar
  27. Meyer-Krahmer, F., & Schmoch, U. (1998). Science-based technologies: University-industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy, 27(8), 835–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.Google Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Powell, W. W. (1998). Learning from collaboration: Knowledge and networks in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. California Management Review, 40(3), 228–240.Google Scholar
  31. Rosenberg, N. (1994). Science-technology-economy interactions. In O. Granstrand (Ed.), Economics of technology (pp. 323–337). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  32. Rosenberg, N. (2000). Schumpeter and the endogeneity of technology—some American perspectives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.Google Scholar
  36. Slowinski, G., & Sagal, M. W. (2006). Allocating patent rights in collaborative research agreements. Research Technology Management, 49(1), 51–59.Google Scholar
  37. SOU (2006). Nyttiggörande av högskoleuppfinningar. Utredningen om rätten till resultaten av högskoleforskningen, SOU 2005:95. Statens offentliga utredningar, Stockholm: SOU.Google Scholar
  38. Thomke, S. H. (2003). Experimentation matters. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  39. Valentin, F. (2000). Danske virksomheders brug af offentlig forskning. En casebaseret undersøgelse, Copenhagen: Danmarks Forskningsråd.Google Scholar
  40. Valentin, F., & Jensen, R. L. (2003). Discontinuities and distributed innovation—the case of biotechnology in food processing. Industry and Innovation, 10(3), 275–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. 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.Google Scholar
  43. 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).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Centre on Biotech BusinessCopenhagen Business SchoolCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations