Upload
jeremy-gilmore
View
214
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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,
School of Business Management and Economics, University of
Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RH
Acknowledgements
• Martin Meyer• Antje Klitkou• Annamaria Inzelt• Marina Ranga• Paula Moutinho• Joaquin Azagra• Pirjo Kutinlahti• Basak Candemir• Devrim Goktepe• Bart Van Looy• Maurizio Sobrero
• Loet Leydesdorff• Izabela Kijenska• Lena Tsipouri• Elena Castro Martínez• Puay Tang• Jordi Molas-Gallart• Uelle Must• Azele Mathieu• Africa Villanueva Felez• Francesco Lissoni
Dagmara Weckowska 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
Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10‐11 May 2012
University Patenting Activity at Country Level
Source: Van Looy et al. (2007)
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
19901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003
AU BE CA DE DK ES FI
FR GB IT KR NL SE US
Selected Universities – patent output
Source: Leydesdorff & Meyer Scientometrics , forthcoming.Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10‐11 May 2012
Selected UK Universities – number of patent applications
Source: HEBCI surveys
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-090
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
University of Cam-bridge
Imperial College London
University of Oxford
Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10‐11 May 2012
Observations raise questions:
• Perhaps, differences can be explained by local practice and 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
Dagmara Weckowska 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
Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10‐11 May 2012
Austria
Belgium
Denmark (since 2001)
Finland
France
Germany (since 2001)
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Latvia
Norway (since 2001)
Slovenia
Spain
UK*
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
Dagmara Weckowska 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
# invention
disclosures
/FTE
# new
applications
/FTE
# new
grants /
FTE
# active
patent
portfolio
/FTE
IP
licensing
income
/FTE
IP licensing income / # active patent portfolio
Surrey/Sussex in 2005/6 3.5 3.5 6 0.52 2.21 4.25
Surrey/Sussex in 2009/10 5.05 24.41 0.74 0.37 48.34 131.07
Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10‐11 May 2012
Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10‐11 May 2012
IP framework
University of Surrey University of Sussex
▫ University IP code
▫ Well established organisational structures: • TTO since 1970s• Science Park and incubator
facility since 1983• SETSquared pre-incubator
since 2002
▫ University IP code reviewed in 2010 – changes with regard to IP ownership in collaborative/contract research and changes in royalty sharing scheme)
▫ Changes in organisational structure: • Sussex IP company (2002-
2008), • Research and Enterprise
Services (from 2008), • close collaboration with the
university incubator - ‘Sussex Innovation Centre’ (est. 1996)
Approach to generating and handling disclosures
University of Surrey University of Sussex• Academics disclose inventions to
RES• royalty sharing scheme:
Inventors: 70% - 35% University: 30% - 65% ----------------------------------------
• RES manages IP protection
• Structured approach to valorisation of IP
• Strategic partnership with IP Group since 2006.
• Academics disclose inventions to RES and also RES actively seeks commercialisable research outputs
• royalty sharing scheme revised in 2010 Inventors: 80% or 40%Their department: 10% or 40%University: 10% or 20---------------------------------------------
• RES manages IP protection
• a stage-gate process for valorisation of IP since 2010
• Collaboration with Sussex Innovation Centre, which helps with IP marketing, business planning and fundraising
• internal seed fund since 2009
Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10‐11 May 2012
Entrepreneurial orientation of university
University of Surrey University of Sussex
Surrey can be defined as an entrepreneurial university.
• there is a strengthened steering core and well-established developmental periphery
• a diversified funding base (2009/10:43% UK public funds, 4% UK charities, 15% UK businesses 7% non-UK businesses31% from other foreign sources.
Sussex aspires to transform into an entrepreneurial university.
• Recently strengthened steering core and restructured developmental periphery
BUT• not diversified funding base (2009/10:
63% UK public funds, 15% UK charities, 5% UK businesses, 0.15% non-UK business 16% from non-UK sources
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
National patent applications
FTE Acad. Staff
# #/FTE Warsaw UT 2001-05 131 0.094 1401Wroclaw UT 2001-05 118 0.100 1177
WrUT/WUT 1.07
Wroclaw UT 2005-10 602 0.310 1943
Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10‐11 May 2012
IP framework
Warsaw University of Tech. Wroclaw University of Tech.
▫ WUT is developing IP policy and regulations.
▫ Technology Transfer Centre promotes and manages IPR since 1997, transformed into CTTED in 2010
▫ Creation of a science park is part of the strategic plan for 2011 and 2020
▫ WrUT has policies in place for IP management since 1998
▫ A number of centres supporting commercialisation of academic research: ▫ Wrocław Centre for Technology
Transfer (since 1996), ▫ the Office of Intellectual Property
and Patent Information (since 2008),
▫ the Academic Incubator of Entrepreneurship (since 2006),
▫ the Student Career Office
Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10‐11 May 2012
Approach to generating and handling disclosures
Warsaw University of Tech. Wroclaw University of Tech.
• Reactive approach has dominated so far.
• A network of faculty-based enterprise managers is currently being developed.
• New policy will oblige academics to disclose
• Royalty sharing scheme So far on a case by case basisPlan: 50% for inventors
25% for the faculty 25% for the central university
• Proactive approach, e.g. occasional competitive bids encouraging disclosures
• Academics obliged to disclose by the University’s policy
• Disclosures are one of the key performance indicators in the periodic reviews of the academic staff performance
• Royalty sharing scheme60% for inventors20% for the faculty20% for the central university
Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10‐11 May 2012
Entrepreneurial orientation of university
Warsaw University of Tech. Wroclaw University of Tech.WUT is transforming into an entrepreneurial university. • strengthening steering core:
introduction of IP policy and inclusion of knowledge transfer in strategy for 2010-2020
• expanding developmental periphery: the professional outreach office was established
• The funding base is not diversified: about 75% from public funds.
• The heartland remains suspicious of entrepreneurial activities. An entrepreneurial culture has not developed yet.
WrUT is an entrepreneurial university. • There is a strengthen steering core -
university’s mission and strategy, policies
• developmental periphery – four organisational units for support of commercialisation activities.
• Diversified funding base for research activities: about 50% from public sources.
• There is entrepreneurial culture in many academic departments developed through years of close collaboration with industry.
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
# new
domestic
applications
/FTE
# new PCT
applications
/FTE
# active
patent
portfolio
/FTE
IP licensing
income /FTE
IP income / # active patent portfolio
USC/UVA in 2005/6 2.13 10.33 2.1 9.90 4.65
USC/UVA in 2010 2.1 2.6 2.4 1.23 0.5
Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10‐11 May 2012
IP framework
Universidad de Valladolid Uni. de Santiago de Compostela
• UVA policy and regulations (1997) establish the procedure and benefits distribution.
• OTRI promotes and manages IPR (only licensing)
• University Science Park and an incubator opened in 2007
• USC policy and regulations (1989) establish the procedure and benefits distribution.
• OTRI promotes and manages IPR(licensing, and spin-out formation, NO support for student start-ups)
• incubator UNINOVA was created in 1999
• a science park opened with its own incubator in 2008
• In 2009 Campusvida started.
Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10‐11 May 2012
Approach to generating and handling disclosures
Universidad de Valladolid Uni. de Santiago de Compostela
• The academics disclose inventions to Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research by means of a technical report.
• OTRI manages IP protection
• OTRI manages the IP valorisation process and negotiations of license contracts.
• OTRI has launched active IP policy in 2007 and by 2010 developed an integral system to manage IPR
• Royalty sharing schemeInventors: 60%Their department: 10-17%University: 30-33%
• The academic disclose inventions to the OTRI
• OTRI manages IP protection
• OTRI manages the IP valorisation process and negotiations of license contracts.
• OTRI coordinates IP valorisation during spin off creation
• Royalty sharing schemeInventors: 60%Their department: 20%University: 20%
Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10‐11 May 2012
Approach to generating disclosures
Universidad de Valladolid Uni. de Santiago de Compostela
UVA has remained a traditional university.
▫ The core is suspicious of entrepreneurial activities due to the previous loss of academic staff.
▫ An entrepreneurial culture has not developed. IPR protection and license policy started in 2007 with good results.
The USC can be defined as a entrepreneurial university
▫ diversified funding base,
▫ active (and creative) policy to promote collaboration with enterprises, IPR, spin offs and start ups
▫ change the academic staff culture.
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 in
local practice or the ‘cultural context’:
• This suggest the importance of local practice or the
‘cultural context’Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10‐11 May 2012