ACADEMIC PATENTING IN GREECE

Transcription

1 ACADEMIC PATENTING IN GREECE Maria Markatou 1 and Yeoryios Stamboulis 2 University of Thessaly, Department of Economics, 43 Korai street, Volos 38333, Greece Abstract Academic patenting has attracted research and policy interest only recently. The aim of this paper is to present an initial picture of academic patenting in Greece and describe its main characteristics. The intensity, technological and sectoral structure of academic patenting is presented along with a comparison with the structure of total patenting activity. Initial observations and hypotheses are formed on the character of asymmetries between academic and total patenting activity. Keywords: Entrepreneurship, Greece, Intellectual Property Management, Patents, Academic patenting, Academia Industry collaboration 1. Introduction As society and economy become more knowledge based there is raising pressure for the translation of academic research in innovative outcomes. Academia is commonly perceived as detached from the realities of production and entrepreneurship and the necessities of economic actualities. However, academia plays a key role at the heart of the knowledgebased economy. They educate people with the needed high level skills and they generate as well as apply new knowledge to enhance economic prosperity and quality of life. Relevant indicators on the potential for competitive development show that Europe lags behind the US in terms of academic patenting. Meanwhile, more recent evidence on the parameter of patents has shown that academic patenting is higher than currently perceived and this result is derived through examining different classifications and kinds of empirical analysis. Greece is considered to be lagging well behind its European partners. The interest in academic patenting is quite recent in the relevant literature and is linked with changes in legislation first introduced in the US (the Bayh Dole Act of 1980 allowed universities to retain rights to any patents resulting from government funded research Sampat et al. 2003, Mowery and Sampat 2005). European interest is also recent (Balconi at al. 2004, Breschi et al. 2005), while European rules are yet not fully harmonized, although EU programs provide some room for academic institutions to exercise patent rights similar to those in the US. In this paper we present a first review of Greek evidence of academic patenting. In this context this paper studies the patents produced by academia focusing on the Greek case. The Greek academia comprises of universities and the technological education institutes (TEI). The patent activity of the Greek research organizations is also included in this 1 Corresponding author: markatou@prd.uth.gr; markatou28@gmail.com 2 ystambou@gmail.com; ystambou@prd.uth.gr

2 study, for they are tightly connected with the Greek academia based on various forms of relationships. The paper starts by analysing the existing literature on this field, discussing the role of and importance of academic patenting and the main challenge for the future. It then presents the Greek case from 1988 to First results show that the Greek academia officially produces and owns a low number of patents. Officially means that these patents are assigned in the name of the academic agent itself being (e.g. University of Thessaly). However, the further analysis shows that many academics protect their patents under their names and not under the academic agent s name. Why does this happen? The last part of the paper is devoted into this issue, discussing the potential causes and implications of this reality. 2. Significance and scope of academic patenting The debate on the impact of academic patenting has addressed a broad range of issues, such as the generation of revenues for universities and research institutes, the impact on the direction and quality of research, the managerial challenges for academic organizations, the delay of publication of research results and overall impact on economic and social returns to public investment (Henderson et al. 1998a&b; Dasgupta and David 1994; Mowery and Sampat 2005; Mowery et al. 2002; Mowery and Ziedonis 2000, Sampat et al 2003). Lissoni at al. (2008) note academic patenting is also an important index of university industry links, especially in science based industries, such as chemicals, pharmaceuticals, biotech, electronics and so on. Also, academic patenting may provide insight on a variety of issues such as the direction of research in academia, the impact of government policy and research programs, networking among academics and with the research activities in industry, academic entrepreneurship and so on (Lissoni 2012). There are critical methodological issues (raising policy and institutional concerns) that should be taken into account in the discussion of empirical evidence. First, the definition of academic patenting may lead to underestimations of its actual magnitude, as many patents may be filed by researchers as individuals and their relationship with their institution is not recorded. Differences in legislative (e.g. definitions of inventor and patent owner), institutional (e.g. autonomy of university management) and academic (status of faculty, organizational values) traditions and arrangements make comparison amongst countries a difficult task. 3. Evidence of academic patenting in Greece 3 Here we attempt a descriptive presentation of academic patenting in Greece. Evidence is based on the data the Greek Patent Office (Organization for Industrial Property OBI). A first measure is the share of academic patenting. In the period from the establishment of OBI in 1989 until 2013, academic patenting accounted for 3.30% ( from 7841) of the total number of patents awarded. 3 The methodology for the presentation and calculation of the indices in this section are based on Markatou (2008). 4 Shared ownership was taken into account.

3 Table 1 details the distribution of patent ownership among academic institutions in Greece. Here we see that members of the old guard such as Aristotelion University of Thessaloniki and Democritus National Center of Research lead the rank, followed by younger institutions such as the University of Patras and the Foundation of Technology and Research. There are unpleasant surprises, in the case of the older and highly esteemed universities, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens and National Technical University of Athens; especially the latter would be expected to be quite active in the field as it is ranking high in EU competitive programs project participations and is a technological institution. Pleasant surprises may be considered the younger, and of lower status, Techological Education Institutes of Chalkida and Western Macedonia. Table 1: Patent activity of academic and research institutions Patent Owner Number % Agricultural University of Athens 1,5 0,58 Aristotelion University of Thessaloniki 44, ,06 Benaki Phytopathological Institute 2 0,77 Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens 11 4,25 Democritus National Center of Research 55 21,25 Foundation of Technology and Research 28 10,82 Hellenic Centre for Marine Research 2 0,77 Hellenic Pasteur Institute 2 0,77 Institute for Language and Speech Processing (ILSP / "Athena" R.C. 2 0,77 Institute of Marine Biology of Crete 5 1,93 Institute of Mechanics of Materials and Geostructures 4 1,55 Mediterranean Plant Conservation Unit 1 0,39 National Agricultural Research Foundation 8 3,09 National and Kapodistrian University of Athens 9 3,48 National Center of Research and Technological Development 8 3,09 National Hellenic Research Foundation 8 3,09 National Technical University of Athens 5 1,93 Technical University of Crete 3,5 1,35 TEI of Chalkida 13 5,02 TEI of Kalamata 0,5 0,19 TEI of Thessaloniki 0,666 0,26 TEI of Western Macedonia 6,333 2,45 University of Crete 8 3,09 University of Ioannina 8 3,09 University of Patras 21,5 8,31 University of Thessaly 1,666 0,64 Table 2 shows that academic patenting has concentrated in two technological sectors, namely Chemistry Metallurgy and Physics. On the other hand total patenting activity concentrates on Human necessities and to a lesser extent Performing operations and Transport. There is a significant divergence which is, surprisingly wider in chemicals and

4 metallurgy than Physics. Although the small scale of patenting in activity in Greece may magnify relative measures, it is still an important finding. Table 2: Patenting according to Technological sector (%) Academic patents Total patents Human necessities 12,38 32,08 Performing operations Transport 8,89 20,33 Chemistry Metallurgy 32,70 5,97 Textile / flexible materials Paper 0,00 0,91 Fixed constructions 0,00 14,32 Mechanical engineering etc. 1,90 11,26 Physics 32,70 9,41 Electricity 11,43 5,32 A more detailed view as is presented in Table 3 shows that chemistry and instruments account for more than 64% of academic patenting, a rather surprising result. This high concentration is not mirrored in total patenting, which is dominated by private sector actors. Table 3: Patenting according to Technological sub sectors (%) Technological sub sectors Academic patents Total patents Human necessities Agriculture 2,54 9,02 Foodstuffs Tobacco 0,63 4,78 Personal or domestic articles 0,63 7,69 Health Life saving Amusement 8,57 12,54 Performing operations Transport Separating Mixing 6,35 2,69 Shaping 2,54 4,44 Printing 0,00 1,82 Transporting 0,00 12,6 Chemistry Metallurgy Chemistry 31,43 5,61 Metallurgy 1,27 0,73 Textiles/ flexible materials Paper Textiles or flexible materials 0,00 0,83 Paper 0,00 0,13 Fixed constructions Building 0,00 15,02 Earth or rock drilling; Mining 0,00 0,17 Mechanical engineering etc. Engines or pumps 1,27 4,38 Engineering in general 0,63 1,69 Lighting Heating 0,00 5,17

5 Weapons Blasting 0,00 0,7 Physics Instruments 32,70 9,98 Nucleonics 0,00 0 Electricity Electricity 11,43 5,32 The asymmetry in patenting activity also persists when we look at sectors of industrial application of patents (Table 4). This asymmetry may be explained by the science based character of the sectors in question. However, a closer look and comparison with other countries may reveal industry academia links as well as fields that may offer opportunities for exploitation. Table 4: Industrial sectors of application and use of patents (%) Industrial sectors of application and use Academic Patents Total Patents Accumulators, battery 0,63 0,08 Agricultural and forestry machinery 7,09 Basic chemical 21,27 3,38 Basic metals 1,27 2,02 Coke, refined petroleum products and nuclear fuel 0,55 Domestic appliances 4,67 Electric distribution, control, wire, cable 1,27 0,55 Electric motors, generators, transformers 0,66 Electronic components 4,44 0,68 Energy machinery 1,27 4,97 Fabricated metal products 1,90 10,69 Food beverages 1,90 4,18 Furniture consumer goods 0,63 4,25 Industrial process control equipment 0,53 Leather articles 0,34 Lightening equipment 0,76 Machine tools 2,10 Measuring instruments 12,70 2,04 Medical equipment 4,44 5,18 Motor vehicles 0,63 3,93 Non metallic mineral products 2,54 5,99 Non specific purpose machinery 4,44 4,76 Office machinery and computers 8,89 3,12 Optical instruments 2,54 1,78 Other chemicals 0,63 0,81 Other electrical equipment 0,95 0,92 Other trasnport equipment 3,34 Pesticides, agro chemical products 2,54 0,50 Pharmaceuticals 15,56 5,81 Pulp, paper, paper products, printing 0,61 Rubber and plastics products 0,63 4,78

6 Signal transmission, telecommunications 8,25 2,58 Soaps, detergents, toilet preparations 0,21 Special purpose machinery 0,63 3,13 Television, radio receivers, audiovisual electronics 0,58 Textiles 0,11 Tobbaco products 0,69 Watches, clocks 0,11 Weapons and ammunition 0,48 Wearing apparel 0,42 Wood, products of wood and cork 0,58 4. Discussion The data presented here have shown a share of academic patenting that is not far from the EU average (Lissoni 2012, Lissoni et al. 2008). A closer look reveals important observations concerning the performance of academic institutions that calls for policy and management attention. Some of the most prominent Universities appear to be lagging behind in patenting activity, while some of the younger ones appear to be high performers. Still this is only a measure of patenting; there is need for a more detailed inquiry into the quality of patents as well as whether there is follow up with exploitation activities. On the issue of technological and industrial specialization the asymmetries between academia and industry show that there is scope for inquiry. There are significant questions that arise. Is academic research lacking industrial needs in some sectors? Is there unexploited research potential? Are there opportunities for new, knowledge based, entrepreneurial activities? Is there a need for exploitation mechanisms, in academia? What lessons might be useful from the international experience? Beyond the Greek reality, the results presented in this paper raise on issue on how to manage intellectual property in academia, whose ability to support the generation and application of new knowledge depends increasingly on the effective management of intellectual property. Universities generate intellectual property through their research and other activities, and they need to have in place strategies and policies to ensure that such intellectual property is managed successfully. Intellectual property represents the property of the mind or intellect. It can be an invention, trade mark, original design or the practical application of a good idea. Eventually, intellectual property is not just about patents but the whole range of intellectual property assets within institutions, but each one of them is different. Intellectual property is necessary for another reason: A substantial proportion of university research is undertaken with collaborators or sponsors who will expect to be able to use the ensuing results and/or benefit from the commercial exploitation of the IP. Universities need to negotiate agreements that give them an appropriate share in any revenues, but they also need to ensure that university staff can use results in future research. Agreements also need to be framed so that the financial interests of universities, and individual researchers, do not compromise the institutions independence. Therefore, academic patenting and its management are very important not only because of the financial returns that generate, but because they contribute to other academic aims and

7 objectives. They also related to a more strategic vision for academia, intertwined with the issue of entrepreneurship and an opportunity to secure the maximum benefit for economy and society. 5. References Balconi M, Breschi S, Lissoni F. (2004) Networks of inventors and the role of academia: an exploration of Italian patent data. Research Policy; 33, pp Breschi S, Lissoni F, Montobbio F. From publishing to patenting: do productive scientists turn into academic inventors? Revue Econ Ind, 2005; 110, pp Dasgupta, P. and David, P.A., (1994). Towards a new economics of science, Research Policy 23, pp Geuna A. and Nesta L.J.J. (2006) University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence, Research Policy 35 (2006) Henderson, R., Jaffe, A.B., Trajtenberg, M., (1998a) University patenting amid changing incentives for commercialization. In: Barba Navaretti, G., Dasgupta, P., Maler, K.G., Siniscalco, D. (Eds.), Creation and Transfer of Knowledge. Springer, New York. Henderson, R., Jaffe, A.B., Trajtenberg, M., (1998b) Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting, Review of Economics and Statistics 80, pp Lissoni, F. (2012) Academic patenting in Europe: An overview of recent research and new perspectives, World Patent Information 34, pp Lissoni F, Llerena P, McKelvey M, Sanditov B. (2008) Academic patenting in Europe: new evidence from the KEINS database. Res Evaluat;16, pp Markatou M. (2008) 'Patents and technological change in Greece', Ph.D. Dissertation, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece Mowery D.C. and Sampat B.N. (2005), The Bayh Dole Act of 1980 and University Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments, Journal of Technology Transfer 30, pp Mowery, D.C., Sampat, B.N., Ziedonis, A.A. (2002) Learning to patent: experience and the quality of university patents , Management Science 48 (1), pp Mowery, D.C. and Ziedonis, A.A. (2000) Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh Dole Act in the United States, Research Policy 31, pp Sampat B.N., Mowery D.C., Ziedonis A.A. (2003), Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh Dole act: a re examination, International Journal of Industrial Organization, Volume 21, Issue 9, November, pp