Download
1 / 22
220 likes | 346 Views
University Patenting in Europe: On the importance of legal frameworks and local practice Martin Meyer et al. . Presented by Dagmara Weckowska SPRU – Science and Technology Policy Research & Dept of Business and Management,
E N D
University Patenting in Europe: On the importance of legal frameworks and local practiceMartin Meyer et al. Presented by DagmaraWeckowska SPRU – Science and Technology Policy Research & Dept of Business and Management, School of Business Management and Economics, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RH
Martin Meyer Antje Klitkou AnnamariaInzelt Marina Ranga Paula Moutinho Joaquin Azagra PirjoKutinlahti BasakCandemir DevrimGoktepe Bart Van Looy Maurizio Sobrero LoetLeydesdorff IzabelaKijenska Lena Tsipouri Elena Castro Martínez Puay Tang JordiMolas-Gallart Uelle Must Azele Mathieu Africa Villanueva Felez Francesco Lissoni Acknowledgements DagmaraWeckowska Leuven, 10‐11 May 2012
Context • More and more European countries have adopted Bayh-Dole type legislation to encourage commercial uptake of university research • through a change of IP ownership that favours universities and often abolishes faculty privileges DagmaraWeckowska Leuven, 10‐11 May 2012
University Patenting Activity at Country Level Source: Van Looy et al. (2007)
Selected Universities – patent output Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10‐11 May 2012 Source: Leydesdorff & Meyer Scientometrics, forthcoming.
Selected UK Universities – number of patent applications Source: HEBCI surveys Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10‐11 May 2012
Observations raise questions: • Perhaps, differences can be explained by local practiceand cultural context • Need to compare (1) patenting activity by university faculty in countries with different frameworks (2) explore differences in approaches towards IP between similar, research-intensive universities in a number of EU member states DagmaraWeckowska Leuven, 10‐11 May 2012
Legal Frameworks • Bay Dole type arrangements/no faculty exception: • Professor’s privilege • Sweden • Finland (until 2005) • Not explicitly regulated: • Czech Rep • Poland • Slovakia • Portugal • Turkey • Austria • Belgium • Denmark (since 2001) • Finland • France • Germany (since 2001) • Greece • Hungary • Ireland • Latvia • Norway (since 2001) • Slovenia • Spain • UK* DagmaraWeckowska Leuven, 10‐11 May 2012
Country Cases Two universities in the UK Two universities in Spain Plans for two universities in Germany Two universities in Poland – work in progress Plans for two universities in Sweden DagmaraWeckowska Leuven, 10‐11 May 2012
United Kingdom • Two established in the 1960’s, members of ‘1994 Group’ • Case 1: University of Sussex • Case 2: University of Surrey Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10‐11 May 2012
Poland • Two polytechnic universities: • Case study 1: Warsaw University of Technology • Case study 2: Wroclaw University of Technology Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10‐11 May 2012
Spain • Case Study 1:Universidad de Valladolid • Case Study 2:Universidad de Santiago de Compostela • Long tradition • Note: Universities may have less autonomy here Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10‐11 May 2012
Some conclusions • Thriving technology transfer activities in environments where a Bayh-Dole type legislative framework was not in place. • This could suggest that the impact of regulatory frameworks may have a symbolic or signalling function. • Case studies have pointed to within country differences in terms of patenting between university pairs • Differences in patenting between pairs decrease/increase overtime and these patterns seem to be related to changes inlocal practice or the ‘cultural context’: • This suggest the importance of local practice or the ‘cultural context’ DagmaraWeckowska Leuven, 10‐11 May 2012
