Optimizing Outcome in the University-Industry Technology Transfer Projects

Open access

Abstract

Transferring inventions of academic scientists to private enterprises for the purpose of commercialization is long known as University-Industry (firm) Technology Transfer While the importance of this phenomenon is simultaneously raising in public and private sector, only a part of patented academic inventions succeed in passing the process of commercialization. Despite the fact that formal Technology Transfer process and licencing of patented innovations to third party is the main legal tool for safeguarding rights of academic inventors in commercialization of their inventions, it is not sufficient for transmitting tacit knowledge which is necessary in exploitation of transferred technology. Existence of reciprocal and complementary relations between formal and informal technology transfer process has resulted in formation of different models for university-industry organizational collaboration or even integration where licensee firms keep contact with academic inventors after gaining legal right for commercialization of their patented invention. Current paper argues that despite necessity for patents to legally pass the right of commercialization of an invention, they are not sufficient for complete knowledge transmission in the process of technology transfer. Lack of efficiency of formal mechanism to end the Technology Transfer loop makes an opportunity to create innovative interpersonal and organizational connections among patentee and licensee company. With emphasize on need for further elaboration of informal mechanisms as critical and underappreciated aspect of technology transfer process, article will try to answer the questions of how to optimize knowledge transmission process in the framework of University-Industry Technology Transfer Projects? What is the theoretical basis for university-industry technology transfer process? What are organization collaborative models which can enhance overall performance by improving transmission of knowledge in University- Firm Technology Transfer process?

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1] Agrawal. „University-to-Industry Knowledge Transfer: Literature Review and Unanswered Questions” in International Journal of Management Reviews vol. 3 (4) December 2001 pp. 285-302.

  • [2] Agrawal. „Engaging the Inventor: Exploring Licensing Strategies for University Inventions and the Role of Latent Knowledge” in Strategic Management Journal vol. 27(1) January 2006 pp. 63-79.

  • [3] N.S. Argyres and J.P. Liebeskind. „Privatizing the Intellectual Commons: Universities and the Commercialization of Biotechnology” in Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization vol. 35(4) May 1998 pp. 427-454.

  • [4] Arora. „Licensing Tacit Knowledge: Intellectual Property Rights and the Market for Know-How” in Economics of Innovation and New Technology vol. 4(1) 1995 pp. 41-60.

  • [5] R.L. Beck. „Competition for Patent Monopolies” in Research in Law and Economics vol. 3 1981 pp. 91-100.

  • [6] J. Bessen. „Patents and the Diffusion of Technical Information” in Economics Letters vol. 86(1) January 2005 pp. 121-128.

  • [7] D. Blumenthal. „Academic-Industrial Relationships in the Life Sciences” in New England Journal of Medicine vol. 349(25) December 2003 pp. 2452-2459.

  • [8] D. Blumenthal et al. „Participation of Life-Science Faculty in Research Relationships with Industry” in New England Journal of Medicine vol. 335(23) December 1996 pp. 1734-1738.

  • [9] Bozeman. „Technology Transfer and Public Policy: A Review of Research and Theory” in Research Policy vol. 29(4-5) April 2000 pp. 627-655.

  • [10] D.L. Burk and B.H. McDonnell. „The Goldilocks Hypothesis: Balancing Intellectual Property Rights at the Boundary of the Firm” in University of Illinois Law Review vol. 2007(2) 2007 pp. 575-636.

  • [11] Burstein and D. Bok. Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education Princeton University Press 2003.

  • [12] CFMT Inc. v. YieldUP Int'l Corp. 349 F.3d 1333 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

  • [13] W.M. Cohen and D.A. Levinthal. „Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation” in Administrative Science Quarterly vol. 35(1) March 1990 pp. 128-152.

  • [14] H.M. Collins. „The TEA Set: Tacit Knowledge and Scientific Networks” in Science Studies vol. 4(2) April 1974 pp. 165-185.

  • [15] Ch.A. Cotropia. „The Folly of Early Filing in Patent Law” in Hastings Law Journal vol. 61(1) November 2009 pp. 72-82.

  • [16] R. Cowan and D. Foray. „The Economics of Codification and the Diffusion of Knowledge” in Industrial and Corporate Change vol. 6(3) February 1997 pp. 595-622.

  • [17] Di Gregorio and S. Scott. „Why Do Some Universities Generate More Start-Ups Than Others?” in Research Policy vol. 32(2) February 2003 pp. 209-227.

  • [18] R.S. Eisenberg. „Academic Freedom and Academic Values in Sponsored Research” in Texas Law Review vol. 66 March 1988 pp. 1363-1404.

  • [19] R.S. Eisenberg. „Patents and the Progress of Science: Exclusive Rights and Experimental Use” in University of Chicago Law Review vol. 56 1989 pp. 1017-1086.

  • [20] M. Feldman et al. „Equity and the Technology Transfer Strategies of American Research Universities” in Management Science vol. 48(1) January 2002 pp. 105-121.

  • [21] B.M. Frischmann. „Commercializing University Research Systems in Economic Perspective: A View from the Demand Side” in University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Process Design and Intellectual Property G.D. Libecap Stamford (CT): JAI Press pp. 155-186.

  • [22] J.C. Fromer. „Patent Disclosure” in Iowa Law Review vol. 94(2) February 2009 pp. 539-606.

  • [23] R.J. Gilson et al. „Contracting for Innovation: Vertical Disintegration and Interfirm Collaboration” in Columbia Law Review vol. 109(3) April 2009 pp. 431-502.

  • [24] Gorga and M. Halberstam. „Knowledge Inputs Legal Institutions and Firm Structure: Towards a Knowledge Based Theory of the Firm” in Northwestern University Law Review vol. 101(3) April 2007 pp. 1123-1144.

  • [25] Hippel. „Sticky Information and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation” in ManagementScience vol. 40(4) April 1994 pp. 429-439.

  • [26] T.R. Holbrook. „Possession in Patent Law” in Southern Methodist University Law Review vol. 59(1) January 2006 pp. 126-131.

  • [27] J. Howells. „Tacit Knowledge. Innovation and Technology Transfer” in Technology Analysis & Strategic Management vol. 8(2) June 1996 pp. 91-106.

  • [28] H. Irwin and E. More. „Technology Transfer and Communication: Lessons from Silicon Valley Route 128 Carolina's Research Triangle and Hi-Tech Texas” in Journal of Information Science vol. 17(5) October 1991 pp. 273-280.

  • [29] C. Jansen and H.F. Dillon. „Where Do the Leads for Licenses Come From? Source Data from Six Institutions” in Industry and Higher Education vol. 14(3) June 2000 pp. 150-156.

  • [30] R. Jensen and M. Thursby. „Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions” in American Economic Review vol. 91(1) March 2001 pp. 240-259.

  • [31] M. Kenney. Biotechnology: The University Industrial Complex New Haven(CT): Yale University Press 1986.

  • [32] E.W. Kitch. „The Nature and Function of the Patent System” in Journal of Law and Economics vol. 20(2) October 1977 pp. 265-290.

  • [33] B. Kogut and U. Zander. „Knowledge of the Firm Combinative Capabilities and the Replication of Technology” in Organization Science vol. 3(3) August 1992 383-397.

  • [34] Krattiger et al. Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices MIHR and PIPRA 2007.

  • [35] L.R. de Larena. „The Price of Progress: Are Universities Adding to the Cost?” in Houston Law Review vol. 44 July 2006 pp. 1373-1375.

  • [36] P. Lee. „Contracting to Preserve Open Science: Consideration- Based Regulation in Patent Law” in Emory Law Journal vol. 58(4) October 2009 pp. 889-976.

  • [37] P. Lee. „Transcending the tacit dimension: Patents relationships and organizational integration in technology transfer” in California Law Review vol. 100(6) December 2012 pp. 1503-1572.

  • [38] R.L. Lieberwitz. „The Marketing of Higher Education: The Price of the University's Soul” in Cornell Law Review vol. 89 March 2004 pp. 763-800.

  • [39] K. Lim. „The Many Faces of Absorptive Capacity: Spillovers of Copper Interconnect Technology for Semiconductor Chips” in Industrial and Corporate Change vol. 18(6) December 2009 pp. 1249-1284.

  • [40] Lockett et al. „Technology Transfer and Universities' Spin-Out Strategies” in Small Business Economics vol. 20(2) March 2003 pp. 185-200.

  • [41] G.D. Markman et al. „Entrepreneurship and University- Based Technology Transfer” in Journal of Business Venturing vol. 20(2) March 2005 pp. 241-263.

  • [42] Marshall. Principles of Economics 8th ed. London: Macmillan and Co. 1920.

  • [43] R.P. Merges. „Of Property Rules Coase and Intellectual Property” in Columbia Law Review vol. 94(8) December 1994 pp. 2655-2673.

  • [44] D.C. Moweryt et al. Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation: University-Industry Technology Transfer Before and After the Bayh-Dole Act Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press 2004.

  • [45] Murray. „Innovation as Co-evolution of Scientific and Technological Networks: Exploring Tissue Engineering” in Research Policy vol. 39(8-9) December 2002 1389-1403.

  • [46] J.E. Oxley. „Appropriability hazards and governance in strategic alliances: A transaction cost approach” in Journal of Law Economics and Organization vol. 13 (2) 1997 pp. 387-409.

  • [47] W.W. Powell. „Inter-organizational Collaboration in the Biotechnology Industry” in Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics vol. 152(1) March 1996 pp. 197-215.

  • [48] J.B. Powers and P.P. McDougall. „University Start-Up Formation and Technology Licensing with Firms That Go Public: A Resource-Based View of Academic Entrepreneurship” in Journal of Business Venturing vol. 20 (3) May 2005 pp. 291-311.

  • [49] E. Press and J. Washburn. „The Kept University” in Atlantic Monthly vol. 285(3) March 2000 pp. 39-54.

  • [50] S.B. Seymore. „The Teaching Function of Patents” in Notre Dame Law Review vol. 85(2) 2010 pp. 621-669.

  • [51] T. Sichelman. „Commercializing Patents” in Stanford Law Review vol. 62(2) January 2010 pp. 341-413.

  • [52] D.S. Siegel et al. „Toward a Model of the Effective Transfer of Scientific Knowledge from Academicians to Practitioners: Qualitative Evidence from the Commercialization of University Technologies” in Journal of Engineering and Technology Management vol. 21(1- 2) March-June 2004 pp. 115-142.

  • [53] H.T. Stelfox et al. „Conflict of Interest in the Debate over Calcium-Channel Antagonists” in New England Journal of Medicine vol. 338(2) January 1998 pp. 101-106.

  • [54] P.M. Swamidass and V. Vulasa. „Why University Inventions Rarely Produce Income? Bottlenecks in University Technology Transfer” in The Journal of Technology Transfer vol. 34(4) August 2009 pp. 343-363.

  • [55] L.G. Zucker and M.R. Darby. „Star Scientists and Institutional Transformation: Patterns of Invention and Innovation in the Formation of the Biotechnology Industry” Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences vol. 93(23) November 1996 pp. 12709-12716.

  • [56] L.G. Zucker et al. „Intellectual Human Capital and the Birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises” in The American Economic Review vol. 88(1) March 1998 pp. 290-306.

  • [57] L.G. Zucker et al. „Commercializing Knowledge: University Science Knowledge Capture and Finn Performance in Biotechnology” in Management Science vol. 48(1) January 2002 pp. 138-153.

  • [58] D.J. Teece. „Technology Transfer by Multinational Firms: The Resource Cost of Transferring Technological Know-How” in The Economic Journal vol. 87(346) June 1977 pp. 242-261.

  • [59] J.G. Thursby and M.C. Thursby. „Are Faculty Critical? Their Role in University-Industry Licensing” in Contemporary Economic Policy vol. 22(2) April 2004 pp.162-178.

  • [60] D.J. Triggle. „Patenting the Sun: Enclosing the Scientific Commons and Transforming the University - Ethical Concerns” in Drug Development Research vol. 63 (3) November 2004 pp. 139-149.

  • [61] J. Washburn. „Big Oil Buys Berkeley: The BP-UC Berkeley Research Deal Pushes Academic Integrity Aside for Profit” in Los Angeles Times 24 March 2007.

Search
Journal information
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 178 101 8
PDF Downloads 105 65 6