Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Engineering graduate students’ views on the effective ownership of academic patents

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

Abstract

For sustainable and effective innovation, who should own an academic patent obtained as a result of funded research? The issue of ownership can influence the motivation of academic researchers. In this paper, we address this issue from the perspective of engineering graduate students who have experience of R&D projects. We aim to investigate engineering graduate students’ views on inter-organizations aspects of patent ownership; and patent ownership policies within university. In this paper, we carried out classification tree analyses of preferred ownership categories, using various factors related to ‘researchers and the environment for R&D,’ ‘technology,’ ‘patenting activities,’ ‘sponsors,’ ‘currently existing ownership policy,’ and ‘compensation policy’. Our findings can help design an effective ownership policy that promotes innovation by incorporating the views of students who will be important asset for future innovation.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. (2000). Is university entrepreneurship different? Mimeo, Indiana University.

  • Baark, E. (1988). The value of technology: A survey of the Chinese theoretical debate and its policy implications. Research Policy, 17(5), 269–282.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J. E. L., & Feldman, M. P. (2007). Fishing upstream: Firm innovation strategy and university research alliances. Research Policy, 36(7), 930–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., & Stone, C. J. (1984). Classification and regression trees. Los Angeles, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chamas, C. I. (2008). Nanotechnology intellectual property in Brazil: Preliminary research note. World Patent Information, 30(2), 146–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y. W., Hsu, P. Y., & Wu, Z. Y. (2015). Exploring managers’ intention to use business intelligence: The role of motivations. Behaviour and Information Technology, 34(3), 273–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y., Gupta, A., & Hoshower, L. (2006). Factors that motivate business faculty to conduct research: An expectancy theory analysis. Journal of Education for Business, 81(4), 179–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chew, P. K. (1992). Faculty-generated inventions: Who owns the golden egg? Wisconsin Law Review, 75, 259–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiang, C. F., & Jang, S. S. (2008). An expectancy theory model for hotel employee motivation. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(2), 313–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, Y. J., & Chen, Y. W. (2007). Using AHP in patent valuation. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(7/8), 1054–1062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, R. (2014). Information environmentalism: A governance framework for intellectual property rights. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Deng, Y. (2007). Private value of European patents. European Economic Review, 51(7), 1785–1812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duval-Couetil, N., Pilcher, J., Weilerstein, P., & Gotch, C. (2014). Undergraduate involvement in intellectual property protection at universities: Views from technology transfer professionals. International Journal of Engineering Education, 30(1), 60–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 17–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Göktepe-Hulten, D., & Mahagaonkar, P. (2010). Inventing and patenting activities of scientists: In the expectation of money or reputation? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(4), 401–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimaldi, R., & Von Tunzelmann, N. (2002). Assessing collaborative, pre-competitive R&D projects: The case of the UK LINK scheme. R&D Management, 32(2), 165–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grönqvist, C. (2009). The private value of patents by patent characteristics: evidence from Finland. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(2), 159–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., & Zeidonis, R. H. (2001). The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry, 1979–1995. RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), 101–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harhoff, D., & Hoisl, K. (2007). Institutionalized incentives for ingenuity-patent value and the German Employees’ Invention Act. Research Policy, 36(8), 1143–1162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haupt, R., Kloyer, M., & Lange, M. (2007). Patent indicator for the technology life cycle development. Research Policy, 36(3), 387–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hippel, E. V., & Krogh, G. V. (2003). Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organization Science, 14(2), 209–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holdford, D., & Lovelace-Elmore, B. (2001). Applying the principles of human motivation to pharmaceutical education. Journal of Pharmacy Teaching, 8(4), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B., & Lerner, J. (2001). Reinventing public R&D: Patent policy and the commercialization of national laboratory technologies. RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), 167–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ju, Y., Sohn, S. Y., Ahn, J., & Choi, J. Y. (2014). Balanced scorecard based performance analysis of accreditation for engineering education. Industrial Engineering and Management Systems, 13(1), 67–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2009). Reconsidering the Bayh–Dole Act and the current university invention ownership model. Research Policy, 38(9), 1407–1422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, K. S. (2009). A study on joint research and development agreements. Journal of Business Administration and Law, 19(3), 405–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollner, H., & Dowing, M. (2004). Licensing as a commercialization strategy for new technology-based firms. Research Policy, 33(8), 1141–1151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V., & Jain, P. K. (2003). Commercialization of new technologies in India: An empirical study of perceptions of technology institutions. Technovation, 23(2), 113–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry, R., Amara, N., & Rherrad, I. (2006). Why are some university researchers more likely to create spin-offs than others? Evidence from Canadian universities. Research Policy, 35(10), 1599–1615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J., & Tirole, J. (2002). Some simple economics of open source. The Journal of Industrial Eonomics, 50(2), 197–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2005). University-based technology initiatives: Quantitative and qualitative evidence. Research Policy, 34(3), 253–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, F. (1989). Technology. Trade and international economic policy. Technology in Society, 11(2), 261–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynskey, M. J. (2006). Transformative technology and institutional transformation: Coevolution of biotechnology venture firms and the institutional framework in Japan. Research Policy, 35(9), 1389–1422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marion, T. J., Dunlap, D. R., & Friar, J. H. (2012). The university entrepreneur: A census and survey of attributes and outcomes. R&D Management, 42(5), 401–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendoza, P. (2007). Academic capitalism and doctoral student socialization: A case study. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(1), 71–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nerkar, A., & Roberts, P. W. (2004). Technological and product-market experience and the success of new product introductions in the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal, 25(89), 779–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyttiggorande av högskoleuppfinningar SOU. (2005). 95. Available at ¨/http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/108/a/53408S.

  • O’Shea, R. P., Chugh, H., & Allen, T. J. (2008). Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: A conceptual framework. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(6), 653–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003). Turning science into business: Patenting and licensing at public research organizations. OECD Publishing.

  • Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 99–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patel, S. H. (1996). Graduate students’ ownership and attribution rights in intellectual property. Indiana Law Journal, 71(2), 481–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, E., Moen, Ø., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2006). Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation, 26(4), 518–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reitzig, M. (2004). Improving patent valuations for management purposes validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales. Research Policy, 33(6–7), 939–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, E. (1991). Entrepreneurs in high technology, lessons from MIT and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D., Hughes, M., & Kertbo, K. (2014). Exploring consumers’ motivations to engage in innovation through co-creation activities. European Journal of Marketing, 48(1/2), 147–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, E. S. (2004). Patents and R&D as real options. Economic Notes by Banca Monte dei Pashi di Siena SpA, 33(1), 23–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sellenthin, M. (2004). Who should own university research? An exploratory study of the impact of patent rights regimes in Sweden and Germany on the incentives to patent research results. Technical report, Department of Technology and Social Change, Linköping university.

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., Atwater, L., & Link, A. (2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21, 115–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silvernagel, C., Schultz, R. R., Moser, S. B., & Aune, M. (2009). Student-generated intellectual property: Perceptions of ownership by faculty and students. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 12, 13–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sohn, S. Y., & Ju, Y. H. (2015). Design and implementation of a six sigma game to develop entrepreneurship in engineering students. International Journal of Engineering Education, 31(2), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sohn, S. Y., & Lee, M. Y. (2012). Conjoint analysis of R&D contract agreements for industry-funded university research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(4), 532–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sohn, S. Y., Lee, W. S., & Ju, Y. H. (2013). Valuing academic patents and intellectual properties: Different perspectives of willingness to pay and sell. Technovation, 33(1), 13–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sohn, S. Y., & Moon, T. H. (2003). Structural equation model for predicting technology commercialization success index (TCSI). Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70(9), 885–899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sohn, S. Y., & Moon, T. H. (2004). Decision tree based on data envelopment analysis for effective technology commercialization. Expert Systems with Applications, 26(2), 279–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterzi, V. (2013). Patent quality and ownership: An analysis of UK faculty patenting. Research Policy, 42(2), 564–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, Y., Wang, N., Yin, C., & Zhang, J. X. (2015). Understanding the relationships between motivators and effort in crowdsourcing marketplaces: A nonlinear analysis. International Journal of Information Management, 35(3), 267–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Krogh, G., & Spaeth, S. (2007). The open source software phenomenon: Characteristics that promote research. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 16(3), 236–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter, S. G., Schmidt, A., & Walter, A. (2016). Patenting rationales of academic entrepreneurs in weak and strong organizational regimes. Research Policy, 45(2), 533–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weckowska, D. M., Molas-Gallart, J., Tang, P., Twigg, D., Castro-Martínez, E., Kijeńska-Dąbrowska, I., et al. (2015). University patenting and technology commercialization—Legal frameworks and the importance of local practice. R&D Management. doi:10.1111/radm.12123.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) Grant funded by the Korea Government (MSIP) (2016R1A2A1A05005270). We thank W. S. Lee and J. H. Park who participated in the early stage data analysis of this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information and Industrial Engineering, Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei-ro Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea

    So Young Sohn & Eun Jin Han

Authors
  1. So Young Sohn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eun Jin Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to So Young Sohn.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 6.

Table 6 The explanatory variables
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sohn, S.Y., Han, E.J. Engineering graduate students’ views on the effective ownership of academic patents. J Technol Transf 44, 132–154 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9598-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9598-4

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation