Financing Knowledge Transfer in Europe FinKT project

Similar documents
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: Challenges, Opportunities and Successful Cases. Phan Quoc Nguyen

CDP-EIF ITAtech Equity Platform

DANUBE INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP

What is InnovFin Equity?

Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and their impact on academic patenting

IP and Technology Management for Universities

Patents and Clean Energy Technologies in Africa

University IP and Technology Management. University IP and Technology Management

The IPR strategies of the Italian National Research Council and its researchers

GENEVA COMMITTEE ON DEVELOPMENT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (CDIP) Fifth Session Geneva, April 26 to 30, 2010

Economic and Social Value of Patents in the EU

Research Patents in Biotech SMEs

EIF Technology Transfer Activities. JRC Round Table Brussels, 11 April 2013 Marc Schublin

executives are often viewed to better understand the merits of scientific over commercial solutions.

Untying the Gordian Knot:

Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP)

World Trade Organization Regional Workshop, Hong Kong, November 11 to 13, 2014

Commercialization Workshop Series Commercialization Pathways. April 2, 2015

Co-funded by the I Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union

The Influence of Patent Rights on Academic Entrepreneurship

Models for Knowledge Transfer an Intellectual Property approach. September 29, Trieste

Patenting Strategies. The First Steps. Patenting Strategies / Bernhard Nussbaumer, 12/17/2009 1

The research commercialisation office of the University of Oxford, previously called Isis Innovation, has been renamed Oxford University Innovation

Patent application strategy when, where, what to file?

Role of Intellectual Property in Science, Technology and Development

Public Research and Intellectual Property Rights

KNOWLEDGE BROKERS. as modern facilitators of research commercialization. Izabela Kijeńska-Dąbrowska Krzysztof Lipiec

Bernarditas Muller Coordinator of G77 and China for the AWG-LCA

The role of Intellectual Property (IP) in R&D-based companies: Setting the context of the relative importance and Management of IP

Support for Universities and R&D institutions

COURSE SCHEDULE

COMMERCIALISATION PUBLIC RESEARCH RESULTS

Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP)

UNCITRAL Third International Colloquium on Secured Transactions Session on Contractual Guide on IP Licensing (Vienna, March 3, 2010)

Internationalisation of STI

What Determines University Patent Commercialization? Empirical Evidence on the Role of IPR Ownership

Inside or Outside the IP System? Business Creation in Academia. Scott Shane (CWRU)

Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP)

Intellectual property governance and strategic value creation:

Practical measures to encourage the diffusion of green technologies: Licensing Fast tracking of green patents The GreenXchange Platform

Industrial Partnerships and Technology Transfer. Celine Serrano Transfer and Innovation Department

Managing the University IP Office

Workshop on International R&D and Technology Transfer Contracts Negotiations, Intellectual Property Rights and Dispute Resolution

Contents. Acknowledgments

The Green Economy: Trade and Sustainable Development Implications. From Rio to Rio:Technology Transfer, Innovation and Intellectual Property

Slide 25 Advantages and disadvantages of patenting

The TTO circle workshop on "Technology Transfer in Nanotechnology"

Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP)

EVCA Strategic Priorities

Implementation of IP Law & Compliance Practices

Facilitating Technology Transfer and Management of IP Assets:

Assessing FP7-ICT research. Performance indicators: patents and publications

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OVERVIEW. Patrícia Lima

FINAL ACTIVITY AND MANAGEMENT REPORT

Engaging Industry Partners

Arlindo Oliveira. An Intellectual Property Strategy supporting Open Innovation

Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP)

The Intellectual Property, Knowledge Transfer: Perspectives

The role of IP and other enabling factors for innovation and uptake of climate relevant technologies WIPO Green technology database and services

WIPO Sub-Regional Workshop on Patent Policy and its Legislative Implementation

DRAFT TEXT on. Version 2 of 9 September 13:00 hrs

Prof. Steven S. Saliterman. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota

From FP7 towards Horizon 2020 Workshop on " Research performance measurement and the impact of innovation in Europe" IPERF, Luxembourg, 31/10/2013

DoD Technology Transfer Program

November 18, 2011 MEASURES TO IMPROVE THE OPERATIONS OF THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT FUNDS

OECD Innovation Strategy: Key Findings

Sponsored by WIPO, JPO, and IPOPHL Manila, 29 February 2016

GZ.:BMWF-8.105/5-II/1/2010

An ecosystem to accelerate the uptake of innovation in materials technology

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE IMEC IP BUSINESS

Asking Questions on Knowledge Exchange and Exploitation in the Business R&D and Innovation Survey

End of Phase 1 and preparation for Year 2 Alberto Di Minin

Sunrise Valley bringing business and science together

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: SUCCESSFUL PHILIPPINE EXPERIENCE

I3U Getting Good Ideas to Market Final Conference September 25, 2018

Technology Transfer at CERN

The role of patents in technology transfer

THE DIGITAL ECONOMY. BIAC OECD Business Day 7 November 2014 Panel on the Business Case for Innovation

2009 Expert Group on Knowledge Transfer

Initial draft of the technology framework. Contents. Informal document by the Chair

OECD s Innovation Strategy: Key Findings and Policy Messages

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC EXPERT GROUP ON TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER FIVE YEARS OF WORK

SCIENCE-INDUSTRY COOPERATION: THE ISSUES OF PATENTING AND COMMERCIALIZATION

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (IP) SME SCOREBOARD 2016

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (IP) SME SCOREBOARD 2016

Building a Competitive Edge: Protecting Inventions by Patents and Utility Models

Dr Richard Zheng, PhD. Director of Intellectual Property Development. University of East London 2009

2010/3 Science and technology for development. The Economic and Social Council,

establishing relationships with firms and community actors; generating new funding support from sponsored research or consulting opportunities;

The European Investment Fund & Technology Transfer. Future Internet Assembly, Dublin 8 May 2013 Dr. Piyush Unalkat

COSME Financial Perspectives European programmes and funds to foster growth Madrid 30 October/Seville 31 October 2013

DRAFT Agenda. designed to Policy at. This one. and wrong! Content: level. the main. their. This day. dealing with

2010/IPEG/SYM/003 Measures for Encouraging Patent Licensing - INPIT Challenges

Translation University of Tokyo Intellectual Property Policy

CREDITING-RELATED READINESS ACTIVITIES UNDER THE PMR: UPDATE AND SUGGESTED NEXT STEPS

Managing Intellectual Property: from invention disclosure to commercialisation

Cooperation and Technological Endowment in International Joint Ventures: German Industrial Firms in China

Towards a New IP Consciousness in Universities and R&D Institutions: Case Show

The 45 Adopted Recommendations under the WIPO Development Agenda

National Innovation System of Mongolia

Transcription:

Financing Knowledge Transfer in Europe FinKT project Federico Munari Department of Management, Bologna University federico.munari@unibo.it EIBURS meeting, EIB Luxembourg, 24 January 2013

Objectives of the FinKT project ( Financing Knowledge Transfer in Europe ) Overall goal: analyse the financial instruments and the forms of partnerships between financial investors and universities/pros that can facilitate technology transfer in Europe The project is undertaken by the Department of Management of the University of Bologna, in collaboration with Bocconi University (Duration: Mar 2012-Feb 2015) The project is funded by the European Investment Bank, under the EIBURS measure Project website: finkt.unibo.it Slide 1 July 6, 2012 KTSP meeting, EIB, Paris FINKT project

Structure of the FinKT project» 4 Work-Packages on Research activities WP 1: The institutional context for technology transfer and IP finance in Europe: a multi-country comparison WP 2: The determinants of IP exploitation of universities and PROs: licensing, patent sale and start-ups WP 3: The design and impact of financial instruments for technology transfer WP 4: Policy guidelines» 2 Work-Packages on Training and dissemination activities WP 5: Summer School WP 6: Diffusion activities Slide 2 July 6, 2012 KTSP meeting, EIB, Paris FINKT project

Empirical / methodological aspects Extensive coverage: Multi-country perspective: analysis of all the main European Member States which implemented experiences of technology transfer financing; Different mechanisms for technology transfer: sale and licensing of patents generated from universities, and the creation of new academic spin-offs; Different types of financial instruments: university seed funds, designed to provide equity financing to new ventures stemming from universities, and patent-backed financial instruments, such as proof-of-concept funds, IP and royalty funds, designed to valorize specific IP assets. Combination of different methodological approaches: econometric techniques on survey-data or newly developed datasets on venture-backed spin-offs qualitative techniques, based on the realization of case-studies related to different experiences of technology transfer financing Slide 3 July 6, 2012 KTSP meeting, EIB, Paris FINKT project

WP1: The institutional context for technology transfer and IP finance in Europe: a multi-country comparison Review and updated map of university IPR laws and rules in the main European countries Assessment of the consequences for the involvement of financial investors in technology transfer Understanding incentive mechanisms of academics and researchers and the diversity of institutional logics of industry work, that may represent barriers to TT activities Map and analysis of policy measures established in Europe to support TT investing, with specific attention to: a) direct financial support (i.e. patent subsidies); b) support for partnerships between universities and financial investors (i.e. patent funds) Slide 4 July 6, 2012 KTSP meeting, EIB, Paris FINKT project

WP2: The determinants of IP exploitation of universities and PROs: licensing, patent sale and start-ups Analyses of the determinants of different means for TT by universities and PROs: patent licensing, patent sale, spin-offs (and commercialization in products and processes). Assessment of the differential impact of relevant factors on joint or alternative means for TT Determinants of willingness to TT vs. actual decisions of TT: assessment of obstacles and facilitating factors for IP markets Many unused patents, but willing to be used: how to exploit these patents? What are the barriers/difficulties to access technology markets? Higher barriers to licensing than spin-offs? Assessment of the impact of type of funding and partnerships on intentions and actual decisions of patent licensing, patent sale and spin-offs Slide 5 July 6, 2012 KTSP meeting, EIB, Paris FINKT project

The commercialization of patents by university and PROs an analysis based on data from the Patval II survey Objectives Understand whether and how the ownership of IPRs by universities and PROs affect their subsequent commercialization by considering three exploitation routes: Patent sales Licensing Spin-off formation Empirical evidence from a sample of 1297 EPO patents with inventors employed by universities and PROs in 23 countries 6

Ownership patterns of University/PRO patents 1. With respect to the paper by Crespi et al, (2010), we find a significant increase in the shares of patents owned by universities and PROs Authors Giuri and Munari, 2012 Giuri and Munari, 2012 Crespi et al., 2010 N. Countries 23 6 6 Priority dates 2003-2005 2003-2005 1993-1997 % University Owned 44% 45% 18% % University Invented 56% 55% 82% % PRO Owned 76% 85% 42% % PRO Invented 24% 15% 58% 7

Patent ownership and commercialization outcomes: descriptive statistics All patents Sale License Spin-off External Use University/PRO Owned 8.32% 27.59% 14.54% 35.89% University/PRO Invented 13.15% 17.95% 15.93% 34.85% Total 10.32% 23.71% 15.13% 35.47% Only University patents Sale License Spin-off External Use University Owned 14.39% 36.98% 23.30% 48.43% University Invented 15.02% 17.37% 15.21% 36.73% Total 14.71% 27.29% 19.05% 42.69% Only PRO patents Sale License Spin-off External Use PRO Owned 2.21% 19.13% 5.71% 23.50% PRO Invented 7.35% 17.39% 13.33% 25.81% Total 3.40% 18.73% 7.50% 24.01% 8

WP3:The design and impact of financial instruments for technology transfer Map and analysis of University Seed Funds established in Europe» Study of the success rates of academic spin-offs backed by USFs, as compared to other VC-backed new ventures.» Analysis of the impact of the type of affiliation and investment strategies of USFs Map and classification of the proof-of-concept funds established in Europe for technology transfer» Understand under which conditions they can be effectively exploited» Identify critical success factor in their design and implementation Slide 9 July 6, 2012 KTSP meeting, EIB, Paris FINKT project

Mapping University Seed Funds and Proof-of-concept Funds in Europe: initial evidence (based on Thomson One and Internet searches) 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 19 11 6 Distribution of USF 5 4 (n=59) 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 250 200 150 100 50 0 202 76 50 47 Distribution of companies funded by USF (n=472) 28 15 14 10 9 6 4 4 2 2 2 1 (n=24) 14 12 12 10 8 Distribution of PoC funds 6 4 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 0 10

WP4: Policy guidelines Implications for Policy measures on: Financial support to universities and TTOs and partnerships between financial investors and universities Functioning of IP markets and participation of research organizations: analysis of impediments and facilitating factors, including financial instruments and supporting institutions Optimal structuring of university seed funds programs, setting up of patent-based financial instruments improving the organization of public-private partnerships between government and regional authorities, universities and research centers and financial institutions, aimed at enhancing technology transfer activities. improving the design and implementation of publicly-supported financial instruments to promote technology transfer Slide 11 July 6, 2012 KTSP meeting, EIB, Paris FINKT project

Main training and dissemination activities Workshop (1 st year) for discussing the themes of the FinKT project with academics, invited experts in the field from Europe, including representatives of TTOs, financial intermediaries, EIB/EIF.» Objective: insights from experts and assessment of the FinKT prokect activities, work in progress, preliminary results and future plans workshop (2 nd year) oriented to TTOs in Europe, financial intermediaries (including VC) and other institutions involved in TT operations» Involvement of Netval, Proton and other relevant networks Summer school on Economics and Management of IPRs (2 nd year): directed to Phd students and other interested people, with the participation of academics expert in the field (including the FinKT team), EIB and other experts from relevant institutions (June 2013) Organization of a parallel or plenary session within the 2013 EPIP conference on IP legal and regulatory system / financial instruments and TT Final Conference (3 rd year) on financing TT, with call for papers and a round table with invited policy makers Slide 12 July 6, 2012 KTSP meeting, EIB, Paris FINKT project

Contacts and project website Project website: finkt.unibo.it - Paola Giuri, paola.giuri@unibo.it - Federico Munari, federico.munari@unibo.it