Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 101, Issue 3, pp 1851–1869 | Cite as

Assessments of technology transfer activities of US universities and associated impact of Bayh–Dole Act

  • Ampere A. Tseng
  • Miroslav Raudensky
Article
First Online:
Received:

Abstract

Patents and licenses are foundational to successful technology transfer in universities. In this article, the activities and performance of university patenting and licensing are studied to gauge the effectiveness of the Bayh–Dole Act (the “Act”), the most influential piece of US legislation on university technology transfer (UTT). Based on raw data from five sources, the annual numbers of patents granted, licenses signed, startup companies launched, and research expenditures are analyzed. Correlations are performed for all data presented to quantify trends over different time periods. We found that patenting and licensing activities in US universities slowed down greatly after 2000 and remained flat until the period from 2010 to 2012, when activities recover to the level of strength characterizing the period before 2000 and after the enactment of the Act. We identify that economic recessions is the major cause to the flatness of the patenting activities during 2000s. We also explain some of the differences found among different data sources and time periods.

Keywords

Bayh–Dole Act License Patent Startup Technology transfer University 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper is based on a keynote speech delivered by the first author in 2014 International Conference on Innovation in Economics and Business (ICIEB2014), Barcelona, Spain, February 22, 2014; a short version of this paper has been published on the conference’s online system. The authors are grateful to Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports to provide the government endowed professorship to the first author at Brno University of Technology (BUT) to write this paper under Project No. HEATEAM-CZ.1.07/2.3.00/20.0188. The Honorary Chair Professorships provided by National Taiwan University of Science and Technology (Taipei) and Henan University (Kaifeng) to the first author in 2013 are also acknowledged.

References

  1. ARWU. (2013). Academic Ranking of World Universities, surveyed by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. Retrieved September 15, 2013 from www.shanghairanking.com.
  2. AUTM. (2006). AUTM Licensing Survey: 1991–2005. Association of University Technology Managers, Deerfield, IL. www.autm.net/Surveys.htm.
  3. AUTM. (2013). AUTM U.S. Licensing Activity Survey: 2006–2012. Association of University Technology Managers, Deerfield, IL. www.autm.net/Surveys.htm.
  4. Breitzman, A. (2013). Patent trends among small and large innovative firms during the 2007–2009 recession. Report for SBA, 1790 Analytics, Haddonfield, NJ. www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/rs411tot.pdf.
  5. Britt, R. (2011). Academic research and development expenditures: Fiscal year 2009. Report No. NSF 11-313, US National Science Foundation. www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf11313/.
  6. Britt, R. (2012). Universities report highest-ever R&D spending of $65 billion in FY 2011. Report No. NSF 13-305, US National Science Foundation. www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf13305.
  7. COGR. (1999). The Bayh–Dole Act: A guide to the law and implementing regulations. Council on Governmental Relations, Association of Research Universities. Retrieved June 10, 2013 from www.cogr.edu/Pubs_intellectual.cfm.
  8. Cohen, J. E., & Lemley, M. A. (2001). Patent scope and innovation in the software industry. California Law Review, 89(1), 1–57. Retrieved September 15, 2013 from www.jstor.org/stable/3481172.
  9. Cullison, W. E. (1989). The U.S. productivity slowdown: What the experts say. Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 75(4, July/August), 10–21. www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_review/1989/er750402.cfm.
  10. Geiger, R. L. (2005). Ivory tower and industrial innovation: University–industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh–Dole Act. Review of Higher Education, 29(1), 130–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965–88. Review of Economics & Statistics, 80, 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoeyer, K. (2008). The ethics of research biobanking: A critical review of the literature. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews, 25(1), 429–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holt, J. (2009). A summary of the primary causes of the housing bubble and the resulting credit crisis: A non-technical paper. Journal of Business Inquiry, 8(1), 120–129. www.uvu.edu/woodbury/jbi/volume8/journals/SummaryofthePrimaryCauseoftheHousingBubble.pdf.
  14. Hornstein, A., & Krusell, P. (1996). Can technology improvements cause productivity slowdowns? In B. S. Bernanke & J. J. Rotemberg (Eds.), NBER macroeconomics annual 1996 (pp. 209–276). MIT Press. Retrieved September 15, 2013 from http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11030.
  15. Ken, Y., Hsu, W.-L., & Tsai, T. Y. (2009). A study on the factors influencing license income of technology commercialization in United States Universities. In Proceedings of the Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), pp 2834–2841.Google Scholar
  16. Kendrick, J. W. (1990). International comparisons of productivity trends and levels. Atlantic Economic Journal, 18(3), 42–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Knoppers, B. M. (1999). Status, sale and patenting of human genetic material: An international survey. Nature Genetics, 22, 23–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kolster. (2009). Economic recession not yet visible in European patent statistics. Kolster Oy Ab, Helsinki, Finland, November 5. Retrieved May 15, 2013 from http://www.kolster.fi/eng/news-articles-brochures/.
  19. Lowenstein, R. (2004). Origins of the crash: The great bubble and its undoing (pp. 110–120). New York, NY: Penguin (ISBN 1-59420-003-3, ISBN 978-1-59420-003-8).Google Scholar
  20. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2004). Ivory tower and industrial innovation: University–industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh–Dole Act. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press. ISBN: 9780804749206.Google Scholar
  21. Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. (2005). The Bayh–Dole Act of 1980 and university–industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments? Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1/2), 115–127.Google Scholar
  22. NBER. (2013). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved June 1, 2013 from www.nber.org.
  23. Powers, J. B., & McDougall, P. (2005). Policy orientation effects on performance with licensing to start-ups and small companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1028–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Resnik, D. B. (2001). DNA patents and human dignity. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 29(1), 152–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schacht, W. H. (2012). The Bayh–Dole Act: Selected issues in patent policy and the commercialization of technology. CRS Report for Congress, No. RL32076, Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  26. Stevens, A. (2004). The enactment of Bayh–Dole. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 93–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2003). University licensing and the Bayh–Dole Act. Science, 301, 1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tseng, A. A., & Raudensky, M. (2014). Performance evaluations of technology transfer offices of major US research universities. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 9(1), 93–102. www.jotmi.org/index.php/GT/article/view/1443/899.
  29. Tseng, A. A., Raudensky, M., & Li, B. (2013). Impingement flux uniformity in nozzle spraying for industrial applications. Atomization and Sprays, 23(9), 819–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. USPTO. (2013a). U.S. Patent Statistics, calendar years 1963–2012. The United States Patent and Trademark Office. Retrieved May 15, 2013 from www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.htm.
  31. USPTO. (2013b). USPTO Patent Full-Text and Image Database (PatFT). The United States Patent and Trademark.Google Scholar
  32. Van Looy, B., Landoni, P., Callaert, J., van Pottelsberghe, B., Sapsalis, E., & Debackere, K. (2011). Entrepreneurial effectiveness of European universities: An empirical assessment of antecedents and trade-offs. Research Policy, 40, 553–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wong, P. K., & Singh, A. (2010). University patenting activities and their link to the quantity and quality of scientific publications. Scientometrics, 83(1), 271–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. WUR. (2013). World University Ranking reported by Times Higher Education, London, United Kingdom. www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings.

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Taiwan University of Science and TechnologyTaipeiTaiwan, ROC
  2. 2.Brno University of TechnologyBrnoCzech Republic
  3. 3.Department of Materials Science and EngineeringNational Taiwan University of Science and TechnologyTaipeiTaiwan, ROC

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options