intellectual property and technological development: the challenges of establishing university...
TRANSCRIPT
Intellectual Property and Technological Development: The
Challenges of Establishing University Industry Links
Beatriz BorherWIPORio de Janeiro, May 23, 2007
Why University-industry links are important for innovation?
• Knowledge – a determinant factor for Competitiveness
Fonte: Science and Engineering Indicators 2006
Growth (%) of the World’s Sales - Industrial Sector (1995-2003)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
High TechnologyGoods
All ManufacturingSectors
High TechnologyServices
1995-2000
2000-03
High-technology share of total manufacturing,by country/region: 1990–2003
Source: National Science board, Science and Engineering Indicators, 2006
The Share of the High Technology Sector in the Total of the Industrial Production – 1980, 1990,
2001
Source: National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators, 2004
R&D Investiment
R&D expenditures of selected region and countries: 1990–2003
Source: National Science board, Science and Engineering Indicators, 2006
Academic R&D as share of total R&D,by country/economy: Most recent year
Source: National Science board, Science and Engineering Indicators, 2006
Science and Technology shortening distances
• New Technologies: i.e., Information Technology, Biotechnology
• A Window of Opportunity - Developing Countries
• The role of universities and research centers
• Patenting by Academic institutions
increased markedly between 1988 and 2003, quadrupling from about 800 to more than 3,200 patents.
• The growth of filling concentrates in life science and biotechnology.
(National Science Foundation - Science and Engineering Indicators, 2006)
Citations of S&E material in U.S. patents:1987–2004
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
Source: National Science Indicator, NSF, 2006
Citations (average per patent)
Academic patenting and licensing activities: Selected years, 1991–2003
NA = not available
NOTES: Number of institutions reporting given in parentheses. See appendix table 5-55.
SOURCE: Association of University Technology Managers, AUTM Licensing Survey (various years). See appendix table 5-69.
Science and Engineering Indicators 2006
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
Gross royalties 130.0 242.3 299.1 482.8 675.5 868.3 1,033.6
Invention disclosuresreceived
4,880 6,598 7,427 9,051 10,052 11,259 13,718
New U.S. patentapplications filed
1,335 1,993 2,373 3,644 4,871 5,784 7,203
U.S. patents granted NA 1,307 1,550 2,239 3,079 3,179 3,450
Startup companiesformed
NA NA 169 258 275 402 348
Millions of Dollars
PCT Ranking 2006
• Philips Eletronics (HL) 2.495• Matsushita (JP) 2.344• Siemens (AL) 1.480• Nokia (FI) 1.036• Bosch (AL) 962• 3M (US) 727• BASF (AL) 714• Toyota (JP) 704• Intel (US) 690• Motorola (US) 637
Developing CountriesPCT Filling, 2006
• Korea 5.935• China 3.910• India 627• Singapure 402• South Africa 349• Brazil 265• Mexico 150
The first 500 in PCTEmerging Economies
China (2)
13° – Huawei Technologies CO
92° – Zie Corporation
India (2)
104° - Ronbaxy Lab
155° - Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)
Singapure (2)
99° - National University of Singapure
432° - Agency for Science Technology and Research
Why University-Industry are particularly important for Developing Countries?
• High concentration of R&D investments on the public sector
• New Technologies – Higher Chances for catching-up
• The need to take advantage of the present assets while working for a change (more investment from the private sector)
Patent Filing in Brazil 1999 - 2003
Source: Pedidos de Patente BR publicados, BANCO DE DADOS EPOQUE, INPI.
In 1990, 8% of the patents were filed by universities and research centers. In 2003, this share grew to 26%.
In 1990, 8% of the patents were filed by universities and research centers. In 2003, this share grew to 26%.
Many challenges to facilitate university industry links
Focus on TTOs• International Trend – growing numbers of TTOs
in the US, Europe – different models
• Public Policies for the establishment of TTOs – Bayh Dole, Innovation Law in Brazil
• The Challenge of structuring TTOs: competencies of managers, accommodating the different cultures (the production of knowledge X the marketing of knowledge)
Ownership of academic intellectual
property in OECD countries: 2003
Debate during 2001 over awarding ownership to universities
Consideration of legislation in 2003 to restrict faculty’s right to retain ownership of publicly funded research.
Legislation passed in 2001 to give ownership rights to researchers. Legislation introduced in 2002 to grant ownership to universities and create technology transfer offices
Private technology transfer offices authorized in 1998
Legislation passed in 2003 to allow universities to retain ownership of publicly funded research
Universities, rather than government, given rights to faculty inventions in 1985
Recent debate and consideration of legislation to allow universities to retain ownership of publicly funded research
Country University Faculty Government
Australia x na na
Austria x na na
Belgium x na na
Canadaa x x na
Denmark x na na
Finland na x na
France x na na
Germany x na na
Iceland na x na
Ireland x na na
Italy na x na
Japanb na x na
Mexico x na na
Netherlands x na na
Norway na x na
Poland x na na
South Korea x na na
Sweden na x na
United Kingdom x o na
United Statesc x o ox = legal basis or most common practice; na = not applicable; o = allowed by law/rule but less commonOECD = Organization for Economic Co-operation and Developmentownership of intellectual property funded by institutional funds varies, but publicly funded intellectual property belongs to institution performing research.president of national university or interuniversity institution determines right to ownership of invention by faculty member, based on discussions byinvention committee.universities have first right to elect title to inventions resulting from federally funded research. Federal government may claim title if university does not. Incertain cases, inventor may retain rights with agreement of university/federal partner and government.SOURCES: OECD, Questionnaire on the Patenting and Licensing Activities of PROs (2002); and D.C. Mowery and B.N. Sampat, International emulation ofBayh-Dole: Rash or rational? Paper presented at American Association for the Advancement of Science symposium on International Trends in the Transferof Academic Research (February 2002).Science and Engineering Indicators 2006
Technology Transfer Offices
To promote the use of the IP system, facilitating the interaction of the academic community with the private sector
to encourage the submission of invention disclosures
to evaluate the chances of protection
to decide on the value of technology
to facilitate the marketing of technology through licensing and through the establishment of start-ups
Assessing the impact of Organizational Practices on the Relative Productivity of University Technology Transfer Offices
(Siegel, D., Waldman, D., Link, Albert)
Research Policy, 32 (2003)
Stakeholder Actions Primary Motive (s)
- Secondary motive (s)
Organizational Culture
University - Scientist
Discovery of new knowledge
Recognition within the scientific community
Financial gain and a desire to secure additional research funding
Scientific
TTO Works with faculty and firms/entrepreneurs to structure deal
Protect the university’ s intellectual property
Facilitate technological diffusion and secure additional research funding
Bureaucratic
Firm -entrepreneur
Commercializes new technology
Financial gain Maintain control of proprietary technologies
Entrepreneurial
Characteristics of UITT Stakeholders
Barriers to university-industry links
• Common vision (TTO+ Firms + University)– Lack of understanding regarding university, corporate,
or scientific norms and environments– Insufficient resources devoted to technology transfer
by universities. • Firm’ s vision
– University too aggressive in exercising IPRs– Bureaucracy and inflexibility of university
administrators– Poor marketing/technical/negotiation skills of TTOs– Public domain mentality of universities
Barriers to university-industry links
• TTO’ s vision– Insufficient rewards for university researchers– Faculty members/administrators have
unrealistic expectations regarding the value of their technologies
• University’ s vision– Insufficient rewards for university researchers– Bureaucracy and inflexibility of university
administrators
Conclusion:
– the most critical factors are:
• faculty reward systems (Patents X Paper) , • TTO staffing-compensation practices (payment by
productivity - Avoiding turn-over) • cultural barriers between universities and firms• The capabilities of TTO staff team (Scientist + Lawyer
or Scientist+businessmen-entrepreneurs? >> second option - more efficient in marketing technology
WIPO’s programs to support TTOs
• Successful Technology Licensing (STL) – Different focuses and format tailored to countries’ and
Region’ s needs and interests (Brazil, Jamaica, Singapore)
• Patent Drafting– Program focused on the training of Scientists-entrepreneurs
• IP Valuation– At the moment, as part of the STL. A program dedicated to
the topic is being created
• IP Network Program– to optimize assets and facilitate assistance
