changes to university ipr regulations in europe and their ... · changes in ipr regulations in...
TRANSCRIPT
Changes to university IPR regulations
in Europe and their impact on
academic patenting
Federica Rossi
Birkbeck, University of London
Aldo Geuna
Universita’ di Torino
Outline
• Changes in IPR regulations in Europe: a typology
• Differentiation among IPR systems
• Changes in academic patenting patterns: evidence
• Changes in academic patenting patterns: discussion
• The impact on knowledge transfer
2
• articles in Business Source Premiere, Ingenta Connect, Social Science
Citation Index containing the following words in title or abstract: Bayh-Dole,
academic patenting, university-invented patents, university-owned patents,
professors’ privilege
3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
number of articles
Changes in IPR regulations in Europe
4
Country Institution Inventor
EU
-15
Austria (2002)
Belgium (1997/98)
Denmark (2000)
Finland (2007/2010) ◊
France (1982)
Germany (2002) ◊
Greece (1995) ◊
Ireland (1964/1992)
Italy (2001/2005)
Luxembourg (1992)
Netherlands (1995) ◊
Portugal (1995)
Spain (1986)
Sweden (1949)
UK (1985)
Oth
ers
Norway (2002)
Switzerland (1911)
Czech Republic (1990)
Hungary (2006)
Poland (2000/2004)
Slovak Republic (2000)
Slovenia (2006)
◊ : Inventor ownership is assigned on certain types of inventions
In brackets: year in which last change in regulation took place
Changes in IPR regulations in Europe
5
Traditional involvement of university in IP
management
Strong Weak
Direction of change in
IPR ownership since
mid-1990s
Continuing institutional
ownership
UK
Spain
Switzerland
France
Greece
Ireland
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
From inventor
ownership to
institutional ownership
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Germany
Finland
Norway
From institutional
ownership to inventor
ownership
Italy
Continuing inventor
ownership Sweden
Countries considered: EU-15 + Norway & Switzerland
Differentiation among institutional ownership systems
Nature of regulation
Specific law (e.g. public
research act) Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Spain,
General law on IPR
France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, Portugal, UK
Type of right of university
Pre-emptive rights Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece
(dependent inventions), Spain
Automatic ownership
Belgium, UK, France, Greece
(service inventions), Ireland, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, Portugal
Type of invention According to funding Finland
According to circumstances Germany, Greece, Netherlands
Remuneration of inventor
No right to remuneration by
law Ireland, Luxembourg
Right exists and is clearly
defined Finland, Germany, Portugal (only PROs)
Right exists but precise
application left to parties or
other authorities
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, France,
Germany, Greece, Spain, UK
6 Countries considered: EU-15 countries with institutional ownership (13 countries)
Differentiation among IPR systems
• Institutional vs. inventor ownership
– Institutional systems
– Inventor systems
• Italy vs. Sweden
• University bylaws
• But: processes of institutional isomorphism due to:
– Policies
– Imitation
– Emergence of professional TTOs
7
Changes in academic patenting patterns: evidence • Academic patenting: university-owned vs. university-invented
• University-owned patents (applications to EPO by priority year)
8
98-00 01-03 04-06(p) % change
98-00 / 01-
03
% change
01-03 / 04-
06
EU-27 573 796 1059 38.9% 33.0%
EU-15 311 480 756 54.3% 57.5%
Austria 3 2 25 -33.3% 1150.0%
Denmark 5 17 31 240.0% 82.4%
France 46 84 117 82.6% 39.3%
Germany (including ex-GDR from 1991) 61 135 252 121.3% 86.7%
Italy 24 46 78 91.7% 69.6%
Netherlands 52 61 68 17.3% 11.5%
Spain 21 32 51 52.4% 59.4%
Sweden 5 5 2 0.0% -60.0%
United Kingdom 245 284 256 15.9% -9.9%
Norway 1 1 7 0.0% 600.0%
Switzerland 47 59 79 25.5% 33.9%
United States 1320 1172 1265 -11.2% 7.9%
Source: Elaboration of Eurostat data
Changes in academic patenting patterns: evidence
9
University-owned patents (applications to EPO by priority year):
% change between 1998 and 2006
-100% 0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500% 600% 700% 800%
EU-27
EU-15
Austria
Denmark
France
Germany (including ex-GDR from 1991)
Italy
Netherlands
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Norway
Switzerland
United States
Changes in academic patenting patterns: evidence
10
University-owned patents (applications to EPO by priority year):
% change between 1998 and 2006 vs. n. patents in 1998
-100%
0%
100%
200%
300%
400%
500%
600%
700%
800%
1 10 100 1000 10000
% c
han
ge 1
99
8-2
006
n patents 1998 (log)
Changes in academic patenting patterns: evidence
11
• Indicators of IPR related activities in UK universities
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09* Average yearly
% change
Patent
applications 1,308 1,648 1,536 1,913 1,898 2,097 10.1%
Patents granted 463 711 577 647 590 653 6.8%
Formal spin-offs
established 167 148 187 226 219 191 2.4%
Formal spin-offs
still active after 3
years
688 661 746 844 923 982 7.1%
IP income (m£) 43 63 63 61 68 124§ 31.4% (11.6%)
Other research
income (m£) 1,508 1,518 1,612 1,829 1,910 2,001 5.4%
Source: HEBCI Surveys - http://www.hefce.ac.uk/econsoc/buscom/hebci/
*Survey conducted by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) with some inconsistencies with
previous years, especially with regard to IP income
§About 42% of the increase on previous year is due to one UK university selling its share of a well-
established company (HEFCE, 2010)
Changes in academic patenting patterns: evidence
ProTon (European Knowledge Transfer
Association)
ASP (Association of European
Science and Technology Transfer
Professionals)
AUTM (Association of University
Technology Managers)
year 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2006 2007
n surveyed 325 323 305 100 140 189 194
average number of
applications per TTO 8.7 10.7 10.1 13.2 14.9 61.5 61.1
average patents granted
per TTO 2.5 4 3.4 6.2 6.9 17.2 18.8
average licensing
revenue per TTO (euro) 266,800 212,600 246,900 n.a. 929,200 6,984,200 10,126,500
Average number of spin-
offs created per TTO 1.6 1.8 n.a. 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.9
Average number of
R&C contracts/grants
executed
381.6 364.8 n.a. 190.5 223.6 n.a n.a
12
Data from TTO surveys (source: Piccaluga and Pietrabissa, 2010)
Changes in academic patenting patterns: evidence
13 Source: KEINS database (Lissoni et al, 2008): EPO applications in DK, F, I, SE, NL, UK; Frietsch
et al (2010) patent applications to German Patent and Trademark Office in D
Shares of academic patents according to ownership 1994-2001
Invented
Owned Individual Company Other
Denmark 11 20 66 3
France 10 4 61 25
Germany 6 34 60 0
Italy 10 9 72 9
Netherlands 26 2 60 12
Sweden 5 13 81 1
UK 40 6 48 6
Changes in academic patenting patterns: evidence
14
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Dk F D I NL SE UK
Owned
Invented Individual
Invented Company
Invented Other
Shares of academic patents according to ownership 1994-2001
Changes in academic patenting patterns: evidence
15
Source: KEINS database (Lissoni et al, 2008): EPO applications in DK, F, I, SE, NL, UK; Frietsch
et al (2010) patent applications to German Patent and Trademark Office in D
Changes in shares of academic patents according to ownership
Country Period Invented
Owned Individual Company Other
Denmark 1994-01 / 2002-06 9 -14 7 -2
France 1981-85 / 1994-01 5 3 36 -44
Germany 1994-01 / 2002-06 19 -15 -4 0
Italy 1981-85 / 1994-01 7 -3 9 -13
Sweden 1981-85 / 1994-01 -2 -14 18 -2
UK 1981-85 / 1994-01 31 -13 8 -26
Changes in academic patenting patterns: evidence
16
Changes in shares of academic patents according to ownership:
• Denmark, Germany: 1994-2001 / 2002 – 2006
• France, Italy, Sweden, UK: 1981-1985 / 1994-2000
-50 -30 -10 10 30
DK
F
D
I
SE
UK
Invented
Other
Invented
Company
Invented
Individual
Owned
Changes in academic patenting patterns: discussion
• Increase in university patenting
– mainly due to entry of new actors
– mainly at the expense of inventor or government-owned patents
– evidence of displacement of company-owned patents in Germany
• Company-owned patents remain very important:
– Weak bargaining power of universities? Lack of ability/interest of TTO?
Defiance of rules?
• Increase in academic patenting
– driven by increase in university-owned patents in follower countries
– evidence of decline or stagnation in countries where it was most
established 17
Changes in academic patenting patterns: discussion
• Impact of changing cultural and organizational background
– patenting as legitimate and important academic activities
– creation of TTOs, university bylaws
– indirect effect of IPR regulations via incentives for TTO infrastructure
• Impact of policies in support of technology transfer
– UK
– Germany
– Norway
– Denmark
– Sweden
– Italy 18
Impact on knowledge transfer
• Ambiguous effects on knowledge transfer if company-owned
patents are displaced
– Academic patents have more forward citations than non-academic
ones but this has declined since mid-1990s (Czarnitzki et al, 2008)
– University-owned academic patents have less forward citations that
company-owned academic patents (Lissoni et al, 2010)
– University-owned patents do not have higher probability of being
used than company-owned academic patents (Crespi et al, 2006,
PATVAL) but are more used than academic patents owned by
individuals
• Need to investigate disruption of existing ties 19
Impact on knowledge transfer
• Need to investigate broader range of channels through
which impact is made, e.g. several types of IP protection
mechanisms beyond patents
– copyright including OS and fair use licenses, design rights,
trademarks, transfer of non patented technologies and public domain
knowledge
• UKNOW project (2008-2009): survey of TTOs at 46 UK
universities
• follow-up project with IPO looking at “demand side”
• proposal to survey UK academics in a subset of disciplines 20
• Reference
• Geuna, A. and Rossi, F. (2011) Changes to university
IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic
patenting, Research Policy, vol. 40, pp. 1068-1076
21