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
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 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 number of articles 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3
Others EU-15 Changes in IPR regulations in Europe Country Institution Inventor 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) 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 4
Changes in IPR regulations in Europe Traditional involvement of university in IP management Direction of change in IPR ownership since mid-1990s Continuing institutional ownership From inventor ownership to institutional ownership From institutional ownership to inventor ownership Continuing inventor ownership Strong UK Spain Switzerland Weak France Greece Ireland Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Austria Belgium Denmark Germany Finland Norway Italy Sweden Countries considered: EU-15 + Norway & Switzerland 5
Differentiation among institutional ownership systems Nature of regulation Specific law (e.g. public research act) General law on IPR Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Spain, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, UK Type of right of university Type of invention Remuneration of inventor Pre-emptive rights Automatic ownership According to funding According to circumstances No right to remuneration by law Right exists and is clearly defined Right exists but precise application left to parties or other authorities Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece (dependent inventions), Spain Belgium, UK, France, Greece (service inventions), Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal Finland Germany, Greece, Netherlands Ireland, Luxembourg Finland, Germany, Portugal (only PROs) Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, France, Germany, Greece, Spain, UK Countries considered: EU-15 countries with institutional ownership (13 countries) 6
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) 98-00 01-03 04-06 (p) 98-00 / 01- % change 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 8
Changes in academic patenting patterns: evidence University-owned patents (applications to EPO by priority year): % change between 1998 and 2006 United States Switzerland Norway United Kingdom Sweden Spain Netherlands Italy Germany (including ex-gdr from 1991) France Denmark Austria EU-15 EU-27-100% 0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500% 600% 700% 800% 9
% change 1998-2006 Changes in academic patenting patterns: evidence University-owned patents (applications to EPO by priority year): % change between 1998 and 2006 vs. n. patents in 1998 800% 700% 600% 500% 400% 300% 200% 100% 0% -100% 1 10 100 1000 10000 n patents 1998 (log) 10
Changes in academic patenting patterns: evidence Indicators of IPR related activities in UK universities Patent applications 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09* Average yearly % change 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 Formal spin-offs still active after 3 years 167 148 187 226 219 191 2.4% 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 wellestablished company (HEFCE, 2010) 11
Changes in academic patenting patterns: evidence Data from TTO surveys (source: Piccaluga and Pietrabissa, 2010) 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 average patents granted per TTO average licensing revenue per TTO (euro) 8.7 10.7 10.1 13.2 14.9 61.5 61.1 2.5 4 3.4 6.2 6.9 17.2 18.8 266,800 212,600 246,900 n.a. 929,200 6,984,200 10,126,500 Average number of spinoffs 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
Changes in academic patenting patterns: evidence 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 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 13
Changes in academic patenting patterns: evidence Shares of academic patents according to ownership 1994-2001 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Owned Invented Individual Invented Company Invented Other 10 0 Dk F D I NL SE UK 14
Changes in academic patenting patterns: evidence 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 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 15
Changes in academic patenting patterns: evidence Changes in shares of academic patents according to ownership: Denmark, Germany: 1994-2001 / 2002 2006 France, Italy, Sweden, UK: 1981-1985 / 1994-2000 UK SE I D F Invented Other Invented Company Invented Individual Owned DK -50-30 -10 10 30 16
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 f.rossi@bbk.ac.uk 21