The Technology Cycle and Technology Transfer Strategies

  • Kenneth A. Zahringer
  • Christos Kolympiris
  • Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes
Chapter
Part of the Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management book series (ITKM)

Abstract

University technology transfer offices (TTOs) must make decisions about whether and how to commercialize university innovations and do so with little or no information about the ultimate market value of the products that might eventually be derived from those innovations. Using technology life cycle theory, we derive and assess the usefulness of metrics that could provide additional information to assist in TTO decision making. We find that being able to locate a given innovation along a life cycle progression can decrease the uncertainty inherent in technology transfer decisions.

References

  1. Anderson, P., and M.L. Tushman. 1990. Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change. Administrative Science Quarterly 35 (4): 604–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayres, R.U. 1988. Barriers and Breakthroughs: An “Expanding Frontiers” Model of the Technology-Industry Life Cycle. Technovation 7 (2): 87–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartlett, J.M., and D. Stirling. 2003. A Short History of the Polymerase Chain Reaction. In PCR Protocols, ed. J.M. Bartlett and D. Stirling, vol. 226, 3–6. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batabyal, A.A., and P. Nijkamp. 2008. Is There a Tradeoff between Average Patent Pendency and Examination Errors? International Review of Economics & Finance 17 (1): 150–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bercovitz, J., and M.P. Feldman. 2006. Entrepreneurial Universities and Technology Transfer: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Knowledge-Based Economic Development. Journal of Technology Transfer 31 (1): 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berger, F., K. Blind, and N. Thumm. 2012. Filing Behaviour Regarding Essential Patents in Industry Standards. Research Policy 41 (1): 216–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carroll, P., and D. Casimir. 2003. PCR Patent Issues. In PCR Protocols, ed. J.M. Bartlett and D. Stirling, vol. 226, 7–14. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang, P.-L., C.-C. Wu, and H.-J. Leu. 2010. Using Patent Analyses to Monitor the Technological Trends in an Emerging Field of Technology: A Case of Carbon Nanotube Field Emission Display. Scientometrics 82 (1): 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chien, A., D.B. Edgar, and J.M. Trela. 1976. Deoxyribonucleic Acid Polymerase from the Extreme Thermophile Thermus aquaticus. Journal of Bacteriology 127 (3): 1550–1557.Google Scholar
  10. DiMasi, J.A., and H.G. Grabowski. 2007. The Cost of Biopharmaceutical R&D: Is Biotech Different? Managerial and Decision Economics 28 (4–5): 469–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feldman, M.P., I. Feller, J. Bercovitz, and R. Burton. 2002. Equity and the Technology Transfer Strategies of American Research Universities. Management Science 48 (1): 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fischer, T., and J. Leidinger. 2014. Testing Patent Value Indicators on Directly Observed Patent Value—An Empirical Analysis of Ocean Tomo Patent Auctions. Research Policy 43 (3): 519–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.07.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gambardella, A., D. Harhoff, and B. Verspagen. 2008. The Value of European Patents. European Management Review 5 (2): 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gans, J.S., D.H. Hsu, and S. Stern. 2008. The Impact of Uncertainty Intellectual Property Rights on the Market for Ideas: Evidence from Patent Grant Delays. Management Science 54 (5): 982–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harhoff, D., F.M. Scherer, and K. Vopel. 2003. Citations, Family Size, Opposition and the Value of Patent Rights. Research Policy 32 (8): 1343–1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harhoff, D., and S. Wagner. 2009. The Duration of Patent Examination at the European Patent Office. Management Science 55 (12): 1969–1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haupt, R., M. Kloyer, and M. Lange. 2007. Patent Indicators for the Technology Life Cycle Development. Research Policy 36 (3): 387–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hayashi, K. 1994. Manipulation of DNA by PCR. In The Polymerase Chain Reaction, ed. K.B. Mullis, F. Ferre, and R.A. Gibbs, 3–13. Boston: Birkhauser.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Henkel, J., and F. Jell. 2010. Patent Pending–Why Faster Isn’t Always Better. Available at SSRN 1738912. Google Scholar
  20. Huang, L.-C., and L. Yan 2011. Research on Technological Trajectories Based on Patent Documents and Related Empirical Study. 2011 International Conference on Management Science and Engineering (ICMSE), IEEE.Google Scholar
  21. Kalaitzandonakes, N., J.M. Alston, and K.J. Bradford. 2007. Compliance Costs for Regulatory Approval of New Biotech Crops. Nature Biotechnology 25 (5): 509–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kayal, A. 1999. Measuring the Pace of Technological Progress: Implications for Technological Forecasting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 60 (3): 237–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kayal, A.A., and R.C. Waters. 1999. An Empirical Evaluation of the Technology Cycle Time Indicator as a Measure of the Pace of Technological Progress in Superconductor Technology. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 46 (2): 127–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kleppe, K., E. Ohtsuka, R. Kleppe, I. Molineux, and H. Khorana. 1971. Studies on Polynucleotides: Xcvi. Repair Replication of Short Synthetic Dna's as Catalyzed by DNA Polymerases. Journal of Molecular Biology 56 (2): 341–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kline, S.J., and N. Rosenberg. 1986. An Overview of Innovation. In The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth, 275–305. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  26. Ko, Y. 1992. An Economic Analysis of Biotechnology Patent Protection. The Yale Law Journal 102 (3): 777–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lanjouw, J.O., and M. Schankerman. 2004. Protecting Intellectual Property Rights: Are Small Firms Handicapped? Journal of Law and Economics 47 (1): 45–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lemley, M., and B. Sampat. 2012. Examiner Characteristics and Patent Office Outcomes. The Review of Economics and Statistics 94 (3): 817–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lerner, J. 1994. The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis. The Rand Journal of Economics 25 (2): 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lundquist, G. 2003. A Rich Vision of Technology Transfer Technology Value Management. The Journal of Technology Transfer 28 (3): 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024949029313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mises, L.v. 1998. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  32. Mitra-Kahn, B., A. Marco, M. Carley, P. D’Agostino, P. Evans, C. Frey, and N. Sultan. 2013. Patent Backlogs, Inventories and Pendency: An International Framework. London, UKIPO-USPTO Joint Report, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/311239/ipresearch-uspatlog-201306.pdf.
  33. Mullis, K.B. 1990. The Unusual Origin of the Polymerase Chain Reaction. Scientific American 262 (4): 56–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mullis, K.B., F.A. Faloona, S.J. Scharf, R.K. Saiki, G.T. Horn, and H.A. Erlich. 1986. Specific Enzymatic Amplification of DNA in Vitro: The Polymerase Chain Reaction. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 51: 263–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Odasso, C., G. Scellato, and E. Ughetto. 2015. Selling Patents at Auction: An Empirical Analysis of Patent Value. Industrial and Corporate Change 24 (2): 417–438. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtu015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. OECD. 2003. Turning Science into Business. Patenting and Licensing at Public Research Organizations. Paris: OECD Publications.Google Scholar
  37. ———. 2014. OECD Patent Databases: Identifying Technology Areas for Patents. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. www.oecd.org/sti/inno/40807441.pdf.
  38. Popp, D., T. Juhl, and D. Johnson. 2004. Time in Purgatory: Examining the Grant Lag for US Patent Applications. Topics in Economic Analysis & Policy 4 (1): 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Powell, J., and F. Moris. 2004. Different Timelines for Different Technologies. The Journal of Technology Transfer 29 (2): 125–152. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:jott.0000019535.77467.68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rabinow, P. 1996. Making PCR: A Story of Biotechnology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Régibeau, P., and K. Rockett. 2010. Innovation Cycles and Learning at the Patent Office: Does the Early Patent Get the Delay? The Journal of Industrial Economics 58 (2): 222–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Saiki, R.K., D.H. Gelfand, S. Stoffel, S.J. Scharf, R. Higuchi, G.T. Horn, K.B. Mullis, and H.A. Erlich. 1988. Primer-Directed Enzymatic Amplification of DNA with a Thermostable DNA Polymerase. Science 239 (4839): 487–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schmoch, U. 2008. Concept of a Technology Classification for Country Comparisons: Final Report to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research: Karlsruhe, Germany.Google Scholar
  44. Schoonmaker, M., E. Carayannis, and P. Rau. 2012. The Role of Marketing Activities in the Fuzzy Front End of Innovation: A Study of the Biotech Industry. The Journal of Technology Transfer 38 (6): 850–872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9296-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Siegel, D.S., R. Veugelers, and M. Wright. 2007. Technology Transfer Offices and Commercialization of University Intellectual Property: Performance and Policy Implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 23 (4): 640–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sneed, K.A., and D.K. Johnson. 2009. Selling Ideas: The Determinants of Patent Value in an Auction Environment. R&D Management 39 (1): 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Taylor, M., and A. Taylor. 2012. The Technology Life Cycle: Conceptualization and Managerial Implications. International Journal of Production Economics 140 (1): 541–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Trajtenberg, M., R. Henderson, and A. Jaffe. 1997. University Versus Corporate Patents: A Window on the Basicness of Invention. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 5 (1): 19–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. USPTO. 2015. 609 – Information Disclosure Statement. Retrieved 25 April 2017, from https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s609.html.
  50. Van Zeebroeck, N. 2007. Patents Only Live Twice: A Patent Survival Analysis in Europe. CEB Working Paper No. 07/028. Brussells, Belgium, Centre Emile Bernheim, Solvay Business School, Universite Libre de Bruxelles. Available at: https://ideas.repec.org/p/sol/wpaper/07-028.html.
  51. ———. 2011. Long Live Patents: The Increasing Life Expectancy of Patent Applications and Its Determinants. Review of Economics and Institutions 2 (3): 1–37.Google Scholar
  52. Wittwer, C. 2001. Rapid Cycle Real-Time PCR: Methods and Applications. In Rapid Cycle Real-Time PCR: Methods and Applications, ed. S. Meuer, C. Wittwer, and K. Nakagawara, 1–8. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Xie, Y., and D.E. Giles. 2011. A Survival Analysis of the Approval of US Patent Applications. Applied Economics 43 (11): 1375–1384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth A. Zahringer
    • 1
  • Christos Kolympiris
    • 2
  • Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Applied EconomicsUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.University of BathBathUK

Personalised recommendations