Date post: | 21-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
View: | 221 times |
Download: | 0 times |
From science to license: an exploratory analysis of the value
of academic patents
E. SAPSALIS*1 , B. van POTTELSBERGHE*²
2nd ExTra/DIME workshopEPFL, Lausanne, 29-30 Sept 2006
* ULB, 1 FNRS Research Fellow, ² Chief Economist at European Patent Office
This paper was partly written when E. Sapsalis was appointed Adj. Associate Research Scholar at Columbia Univ. (NY-USA). We thank the FNRS, the ULB and the foundation MC Adam for supporting financially this research stay
The views expressed in this article are purely those of the authors and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the EPO or of the ULB.
Contact: [email protected]
2
Objective
Analyse the value determinants of the technological, industrial, entrepreneurial impact of academic patents
5
The academic revolution
Academic Patenting at the EPO
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0,0%
0,5%
1,0%
1,5%
2,0%
2,5%
# EPO applications % EPO applications
Source: European Patent Office: own calculations
6
Academic Patenting Revolution
IP-oriented emerging technologies ; Biotech, Nanotech,…
Patent-oriented laws USA/European countries: Dayh-Dole Act like
legislations
More active role that academia has been asked to play in the Knowledge Economy
7
Pending questions
Management of Technology transfer Spin-offs; licenses; research contracts/ alliances
etc…
Debates related to the roles of university
Dissemination of science The balance between the different missions of
universities Quality of research; quality of patents
9
State of the art (1) The distribution of patents’ value is highly
skewed
Value Proxies Monetary value of a patent (e.g. Harhoff et al., 1999, 2002) Present value evaluated by experts (e.g. Reitzig, 2003) Forward citations (e.g. Lerner, 1994; Sapsalis and van Pottelsberghe,
2006, 2007) Composite indicator (e.g. Lanjouw and Schankerman, 1999) Creation of a start-up (e.g. Shane, 2001) Probability to get a patent …
Granted (e.g. Guellec and van Pottelsberghe, 2000) Opposed (e.g. Lanjouw and Schankerman, 1997) Renewed (e.g. Lanjouw and Schankerman, 1999) Licensed (e.g. Dechenaux et al., 2003 )
10
State of the art (2) Value determinants
Forward citations ++++ (ex: Shane, 2001) Patent family size ++ (ex: Lanjouw and Schankerman,
1999) Results of opposition & annulment procedures : + (ex: Harhoff et al, 2003) Backward patent citations: + (ex: Harhoff and Reitzig, 2000) Non-patent citations: (+) (ex: Harhoff and Reitzig, 2000) Claims: (+) (ex: Lanjouw and Schankerman,
1997) Patent scope: (+/-) (ex: Lerner, 1994) Time: + (ex: Guellec and van
Pottelsberghe, 2002) Technical field: (*) (ex: Harhoff et al, 1999) Ownership characteristics: (*) (ex: Guellec and van
Pottelsberghe, 2002)
13
Data Data Source: DELPHION database
Patents’ priority date: 1985-2003 Assignees : 6 Belgian universities
UCL, ULB, Ulg, KUL, UG, VUB
EPO patents grouped in patent families 364 EPO patent families
334 EPO patent families with available exploitation data 142 licensed patents
53 licensed to spin-offs 89 licensed to established companies
14
Belgian academic patents
Academic patents and licenses (EPO priority date: 1985-2003)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
No licensee Established Company Spin-off
16
Empirical implementation (1) Negative Binomial
Model Number of patent
citations
Probit/Logit Model License
agreements With established
companies With spin-offs
17
Empirical implementation (2)
Dependent variables: Technological impact : # FPC Industrial impact: dummy variable
standing for a license given to industry
Entrepreneurial impact: dummy variable standing for a licence given to a spin-off
18
Empirical implementation (3)
Independent variables: Technological impact:
# FPC & origin Science knowledge :
# NPC & origin Technological knowledge:
# BPC & origin Ownership:
# Inv; # Ass & type IP protection:
Time; Patent Family; Claims; Scope
19
Setting hypotheses (1)
Technological impact Industry License = f+(FPC-self; FPC-PRI ;
FPC-Co) Startup License = f+(FPC-PRI ; FPC-Co)
Scientific base # forward patent citations = f+(NPC-self); f -
(NPC-non self) Industry License = f+(NPC-self); f -(NPC-non
self) Startup License = f+(NPC-self); f -(NPC-non
self)
20
Setting hypotheses (2)
Technological Base # forward patent citations = f+(BPC-PRI) ; f -
(BPC-Self) Industry License = f+(BPC-self; BPC-PRI ; BPC-
Co) Startup License = f+(BPC-PRI ; BPC-Co)
Ownership # forward patent citations = f+(Ass-PRI); Industry License = f+(Ass-Ind); Startup License = f+(NPC-self); f -(NPC-non
self)
21
Setting hypotheses (3)
IP Protection # forward patent citations = f+(Fam; Claim); Industry License = f+(Fam; Claim); f -(Scope) Startup License = f+(Fam; Claim; Scope);
27
Concluding remarks (1)
Policy implications Focus on high level scientists
importance of tacit knowledge
Importance of collaboration Academic collaboration: + tech impact ; -
ind impact Industrial collaboration: + ind impact
importance of close contact with industry
28
Concluding remarks (2) Management implications
TTO and Funding bodies Management of IP co-developed by different
public research institutions Spin-offs and established companies exploit
different types of patents
Further research Analyse commercial impact Analyse the impact of academic inventions
on industrial portfolio