Academic involvement in technology activity: do modes of involvement make a difference? The Flemish case.

Julie Callaert, Mariette Du Plessis, Bart Van Looy

Research Division INCENTIM – Faculty of Business and EconomicsECOOM KU Leuven

Background

- Increased reliance on indicators for mapping and monitoring science-technology interactions in innovation systems

- Indicators based on “university-owned” patents (i.e. patents with universities acting as assignees) do not reveal the full picture of university involvement in technology development

- Need for identifying patents that are “university-invented” (and not university-owned)- …to grasp a more complete picture of academic patenting- …to allow for the assessment of differences between

university-owned and university-invented patents

Background

- Sharp increase in academic patenting has raised suspicions / fears about decreasing quality of university patents relevance of analyzing patent-value of academic patents

- Research objective: to study whether modes of involvement in academic patenting matter for patent value- Assessment of differences between university-owned and

university-invented patents in terms of :- ‘Originality’ (or: relatedness to a more diverse knowledge base): extent to

which the nature of the research underlying the patent is based on prior art in a broad range of fields

- ‘Generality’: extent to which the outcome of the research serves as prior art for a broad range of technology fields

- ‘Impact’: assessed by forward patent citations

Data & Methodology

• Data cover Flemish universities: KU Leuven (KUL), Universiteit Gent (UG), Universiteit Antwerpen (UA), Universiteit Hasselt (UH) and Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB)

• Identification of university-owned patents: – EPO and USPTO granted patents – with at least 1 Flemish university as applicant (< ECOOM

sector allocation and name harmonization) – application years 1991-2001 (allowing for time window forward

citations)

Data & Methodology

• Identification of university-invented patents: – We consider all inventor names on EPO and USPTO granted

patents with application years between 1991-2001– Personnel data files of the Flemish universities for the years

1990-2000.– Matching between personnel surnames and inventor surnames

• First visual scan to eliminate certain mismatches• For the withheld potential matches: search contact details of university

researcher• Contact researcher to confirm inventorship• Only confirmed matches are retained in the database

Data & Methodology

Data & Methodology

• Additional information extracted for all withheld university-owned and university-invented (source) patents (Source: PATSTAT version Autumn 2011):

- Technology domains of source patent (IPC 1 digit)

- Applicants and inventors of source patents

- Backward cited and forward citing patents with respective IPC3digit codes

- Number of cited non-patent references

Data & Methodology

• Unit of analysis = patent• Dependent Variables: Indicators related to patent ‘value’:

• Impact (number of forward patent citations) as basic quality indicatorForward citation window: 9 years

• Originality:extent to which the nature of the research underlying the patent is based on prior art in a broad range of fieldscalculated as 1- the Herfindahl index of technological classes (3 digit IPC) of all backward cited patents

• Generality: extent to which the outcome of the research serves as prior art for a broad range of technology fields.calculated as 1- the Herfindahl index of technological classes (3 digit IPC) of all forward citing patents

• Independent variable: University-owned <> University-invented• Control variables:

• Application year, • Technological field (IPC1 digit level),• Technological breadth (number of IPC3 digit codes),• Patent system (EPO / USPTO)• Number of backward patent citations• Number of non-patent references

Descriptives

IPC (1 digit) University-invented

University-owned

Total

A. HUMAN NECESSITIES 136 (74%) 47 (26%) 183 (100%)B. PERFORMING OPERATIONS; TRANSPORTING 59 (88%) 8 (12%) 67 (100%)C. CHEMISTRY; METALLURGY 196 (76%) 63 (24%) 259 (100%)D. TEXTILES; PAPER 2 (40%) 3 (60%) 5 (100%)E. FIXED CONSTRUCTIONS 2 (67%) 1 (33%) 3 (100%)F. MECHANICAL ENGINEERING; LIGHTING; HEATING; WEAPONS; BLASTING

2 (100%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%)

G. PHYSICS 66 (58%) 48 (42%) 114 (100%)H. ELECTRICITY 38 (44%) 49 (56%) 87 (100%)TOTAL 501 (70%) 219 (30%) 720 (100%)

University-invented

University-owned

Total

EPO grants 59 (63%) 35 (37%) 94 (100%) USPTO grants 260 (69%) 117 (31%) 377 (100%)Total 319 (68%) 152 (32%) 471 (100%)

Descriptives

Sector-breakdown of university-invented patents:

Sector breakdown of university-owned patents:- 19% is co-owned with a non-profit or governmental institute - 8% is co-owned with a company- 6% is co-owned with an individual

SECTOR % university-invented patentsCOMPANY 92% INDIVIDUAL 5% GOV NON-PROFIT 3%

Correlations

GENERALITY ORIGINALITY IMPACTNBR BW PAT

CIT NBR IPC3 APPY NBR NPR

GENERALITY Pearson Correlation 1 ,386** ,036 ,043 ,221** ,004 ,082*

Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,386 ,303 ,000 ,917 ,049

N 582 548 582 582 582 582 582

ORIGINALITY Pearson Correlation ,386** 1 -,116** ,194** ,365** -,041 ,164**

Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,004 ,000 ,000 ,313 ,000

N 548 605 605 605 605 605 605

IMPACT Pearson Correlation ,036 -,116** 1 ,135** -,214** ,153** ,004

Sig. (2-tailed) ,386 ,004 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,921

N 582 605 720 720 720 720 720

NBR BW PAT CIT Pearson Correlation ,043 ,194** ,135** 1 -,080* ,179** ,699**

Sig. (2-tailed) ,303 ,000 ,000 ,032 ,000 ,000

N 582 605 720 720 720 720 720

NBR IPC3 Pearson Correlation ,221** ,365** -,214** -,080* 1 -,048 ,022

Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,000 ,000 ,032 ,201 ,559

N 582 605 720 720 720 720 720

APPY Pearson Correlation ,004 -,041 ,153** ,179** -,048 1 ,043

Sig. (2-tailed) ,917 ,313 ,000 ,000 ,201 ,252

N 582 605 720 720 720 720 720

NBR NPR Pearson Correlation ,082* ,164** ,004 ,699** ,022 ,043 1

Sig. (2-tailed) ,049 ,000 ,921 ,000 ,559 ,252

N 582 605 720 720 720 720 720**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Results: Originality (ANCOVA)

Dependent Variable:ORIGINALITY

Source

Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 5,390a 13 ,415 11,539 ,000

Intercept ,087 1 ,087 2,408 ,121

Univ-owned /

Univ-invented

,010 1 ,010 ,270 ,604

Patent System ,040 1 ,040 1,125 ,289

Tech domain

IPC1

,556 7 ,079 2,212 ,032

Appl year ,081 1 ,081 2,258 ,133

Tech breadth (#

IPC3)

3,062 1 3,062 85,219 ,000

NBR BW PAT

CIT

,563 1 ,563 15,666 ,000

NBR NPR ,020 1 ,020 ,554 ,457

Error 21,236 591 ,036

Total 213,798 605

Corrected Total 26,626 604

a. R Squared = ,202 (Adjusted R Squared = ,185)

• No difference between university-owned and university-invented patents

• Technologically broader patents are more original

• Positive relation between number of patents cited and originality

• Significant technology domain effects

Results: Generality (ANCOVA)

Dependent Variable:GENERALITY

SourceType III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Corrected Model 3,366a 13 ,259 5,971 ,000

Intercept ,155 1 ,155 3,570 ,059

Univ-owned / Univ-invented

,030 1 ,030 ,687 ,407

Patent System 1,296 1 1,296 29,884 ,000

Tech domain IPC1 ,321 6 ,053 1,234 ,287

Appl year ,148 1 ,148 3,406 ,065

Tech breadth (# IPC3)

1,561 1 1,561 36,000 ,000

NBR BW PAT CIT ,012 1 ,012 ,265 ,607

NBR NPR ,037 1 ,037 ,845 ,358

NBR FW PAT CIT ,127 1 ,127 2,919 ,088

Error 24,626 568 ,043

Total 197,768 582

Corrected Total 27,992 581

a. R Squared = ,120 (Adjusted R Squared = ,100)

• No difference between university-owned and university-invented patents

• Higher generality for US patents

• Higher generality for technologically broader patents

• Slightly higher generality for older patents

• Slight positive relation between generality and number of forward patent citations

Results: Impact (Neg Binomial regr)

• University owned patents have higher impact

• Higher impact for US patents

• Positive relation between backward patent citations and impact

• Lower impact for technologically broader patents

• Lower impact for patents with more NPRs

• Significant technolgical domain differences

• Strong interaction between patent system and university-owned versus -invented

Tests of Model Effects

Source

Type III

Wald Chi-Square df Sig.

(Intercept) ,039 1 ,844

Univ-owned / Univ-invented 21,486 1 ,000

Tech domain IPC1 44,277 4 ,000

Patent System 50,390 1 ,000

NBR NPR 8,658 1 ,003

Tech breadth (# IPC3) 26,483 1 ,000

NBR BW PAT CIT 13,145 1 ,000

Appl year ,060 1 ,806

Univ-owned / Univ-invented *

Patent System

19,393 1 ,000

Dependent Variable: Impact

Results: Impact (Neg Binomial regr)

Tests of Model Effectsa

Source

Type III

Wald Chi-Square df Sig.

(Intercept) 2,059 1 ,151

Univ-owned / Univ-

invented

,042 1 ,838

Tech domain IPC1 49,453 4 ,000

NBR NPR 4,502 1 ,034

Tech breadth (#

IPC3)

15,945 1 ,000

NBR BW PAT CIT 7,058 1 ,008

Appl year 2,223 1 ,136

Dependent Variable: Impact

a. PAT_AUTH = US

Tests of Model Effectsa

Source

Type III

Wald Chi-Square df Sig.

(Intercept) 3,911 1 ,048

Univ-owned / Univ-

invented

8,046 1 ,005

Tech domain IPC1 2,288 4 ,683

NBR NPR 2,746 1 ,098

Tech breadth (#

IPC3)

11,011 1 ,001

NBR BW PAT CIT 29,200 1 ,000

Appl year 3,871 1 ,049

Dependent Variable: Impact

a. PAT_AUTH = EP

• Higher impact of university-owned patents is significant for EPO patents, not for USPTO patents

Conclusions

• Are academic patents more ‘valuable’ if firms are involved? Our findings do not support this:

• No significant difference between university-owned and university-invented patents in terms of “originality” (or rather: diversity in the related knowledge base).

• No significant difference between university-owned and university-invented patents in terms of generality.

• The impact of university-owned patents is not lower than the impact of university-invented patents. On the contrary even: for EPO patents, university-owned patents receive significantly more citations than university-invented patents.

• The volume of university-owned patents has known a large increase over the last decades. Some suspect a decreasing quality. Our findings do not support this (~ no significant decrease of originality / generality / impact of academic patents over time).