Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reports results from a survey of 208 Italian faculty members, inventors of university-owned patents, on their motivation to get involved in university patenting activities, the obstacles that they faced, and their suggestions to foster the commercialization of academic knowledge through patents. Findings show that respondents get involved in patenting activities to enhance their prestige and reputation, and look for new stimuli for their research; personal earnings do not represent a main incentive. University-level patent regulations reduce the obstacles perceived by inventors, as far as they signal universities’ commitment to legitimate patenting activities. Implications for innovation policies are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agrawal, A., R. Henderson (2002), Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48: 44–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allan, M. F. (2001), A review of best practices in university technology licensing offices. The Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, 13: 57–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyres, N. S., J. P. Liebeskind (1998), Privatizing the intellectual commons: Universities and the commercialization of biotechnology. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 35: 427–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Association of University Technology Managers (2003), AUTM Licensing Survey. Fiscal Year 2002. Association of University Technology Managers, Norwalk, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balconi, M., S. Borghini, A. Moisello (2003), Ivory tower vs. spanning university: il caso dell’Università di Pavia. In: Bonaccorsi, A. (Ed.), Il sistema della ricerca pubblica in Italia, Franco Angeli, Milan, pp. 133–175.

  • Baldini, N., R. Grimaldi, M. Sobrero (2004), La diffusione di pratiche organizzative tra pressioni ambientali e processi di legittimazione: un’analisi empirica dei regolamenti universitari in materia di invenzioni. In: Zollo, G. (Ed.), Valori, risorse e competenze nelle organizzazioni, Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, Naples, (CD).

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldini, N., R. Grimaldi, M. Sobrero (2006), Institutional changes and the commercialization of academic knowledge: A study of Italian universities’ patenting activities between 1965 and 2002. Research Policy, 35: 518–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal, D., E. G. Campbell, N. Causino, K. S. Louis (1997), Withholding research results in academic life science. Evidence from a national survey of faculty. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277(15): 1224–1228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi, A. (2003), Il sistema della ricerca pubblica in Italia. Franco Angeli, Milan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branscomb, L., F. Kodama, R. Florida (1999), Industrializing Knowledge. Sage, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breschi, S., F. Lissoni, F. Montobbio (2005), The Scientific Productivity of Academic Inventors: New Evidence from Italian Data. Working Paper 168, Centre for Research on Innovation and Internationalisation, Bocconi University, Milan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calderini, M., C. Franzoni (2004), Is Academic Patenting Detrimental to High Quality Research? An Empirical Analysis of the Relationship Between Scientific Careers and Patent Applications. Working Paper 162, Centre for Research on Innovation and Internationalisation, Bocconi University, Milan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, E. G., J. S. Weismann, N. Causino, D. Blumenthal (2000), Data withholding in academic medicine: Characteristics of faculty denied access to research results and biomaterials. Research Policy, 29: 303–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capano, G. (2000), L’università in Italia. Il Mulino, Bologna.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cesaroni, F., A. Piccaluga (2003), L’attività brevettuale degli enti pubblici di ricerca in Italia ed in Europa. Rilevante? In crescita? Utile? In: Bonaccorsi, A. (Ed.), Il sistema della ricerca pubblica in Italia, Franco Angeli, Milan, pp. 101–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., R. R. Nelson, J. P. Walsh (2002), Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48: 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coutinho, M., E. Balbachevsky, D. Oliveira Holzhacker, D. Da Costa Patrao, R. L. Nicoliello Zorzetto Vencio, R., L. Medeiros Da Silva, M. Gomes Lucatelli, L. Flavio Dos Reis, M. A. Marin (2003), Intellectual property and public research in biotechnology: The scientists opinion. Scientometrics, 58: 641–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, P., P. A. David (1994), Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23: 487–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Gregorio, D., S. Shane (2003), Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32: 209–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (1998), The norm of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy, 27: 823–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, R., C. Olofsson (2004), Science parks and the development of NTBFs. Location, survival and growth. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29: 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florida, R. (1999), The role of the university: Leveraging talent, not technology. Issues in Science and Technology, 15(4): 67–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, J., J. Silberman (2003), University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28: 17–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A. (2001), The changing rationale for university research funding: Are there negative unintended consequences? Journal of Economic Issues, 35: 607–632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A., L. Nesta (2003), University Patenting and Its Effects on Academic Research. Working paper no. 99, Science and Technology Policy Research, Brighton, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldfarb, B., M. R. Henrekson (2003), Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy, 32: 639–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimaldi, R., N. von Tunzelmann (2002), Assessing collaborative, pre-competitive R&D projects: The case of the UK LINK scheme. R&D Management, 32: 165–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackett, S. M., D. M. Dilts (2004), A systematic review of business incubation research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29: 55–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J., R. Anderson, R. Tatham, W. Black (1995), Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henrekson, M., N. Rosenberg (2001), Designing efficient institutions for science-based entrepreneurship: Lesson from U.S. and Sweden. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26: 207–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacob M., M. Lundqvist, H. Hellsmark (2003), Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish university system: The case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research Policy, 32: 1555–1568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, R., J. G. Thursby, M. C. Thursby (2003), Disclosure and licensing of university inventions: ‘The best we can do with the s**t we get to work with’. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21: 1271–1300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, R., M. C. Thursby (2002), The Academic Effects of Patentable Research. Mimeo.

  • Kenney, M., W. R. Goe (2004), The role of social embeddedness in professorial entrepreneurship: a comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at U.C. Berkeley and Stanford. Research Policy, 33: 691–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lach, S., M. Schankerman (2003), Incentives and Invention in Universities. Working paper no. 9727, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. S. (1996), Technology transfer and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration. Research Policy, 25: 843–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. S. (2000), The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment. Journal of Technology Transfer, 25: 111–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louis, K. S., L. M. Jones, M. S. Anderson, D. Blumenthal, E. G. Campbell (2001), Entrepreneurship, secrecy, and productivity: A comparison of clinical and non-clinical life sciences faculty. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26: 233–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E. (1991), Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy, 20: 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matkin, G. W. (1994), Technology transfer and public policy: lessons from a case study. Policy Studies Journal, 22: 371–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. C. (1973), The normative structure of science. In: Merton, R. (Ed.), The Sociology of Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., R. R. Nelson, B. R. Sampat, A. A. Ziedonis (2001), The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980. Research Policy, 30: 99–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., R. R. Nelson, B. R. Sampat, A. A. Ziedonis (2004), Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., B. N. Sampat, A. A. Ziedonis (2002), Learning to patent: Institutional experience, learning and the characteristics of US university patents after the Bayh-Dole Act, 1981–1992. Management Science, 48: 73–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2003), Turning Science into Business. Patenting and Licensing at Public Research Organizations. OECD publications, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith, J., W. W. Powell (2001), To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26: 99–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahm, D. (1994), Academic perceptions of university-firm technology transfer. Policy Studies Journal. 22: 267–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranga, L. M., K. Debackere, N. von Tunzelmann (2003), Entrepreneurial universities and the dynamics of academic knowledge production: A case study of basic vs. applied research in Belgium. Scientometrics, 58: 301–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmoch, U. (1999), Interaction of universities and industrial enterprises in Germany and the United States — a comparison. Industry and Innovation, 6(1): 51–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., D. Waldman, A. Link (2003), Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32: 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, P. E. (2001), Educational implications of University-Industry technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26: 199–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, P. E., S. Gurmu, A. J. Sumell, G. Black (2007), Who’s patenting in the university? Evidence from the survey of doctorate recipients. Economics of Innovation adn New Technology, fortcoming

  • Thursby, J. C., R. Jensen, M. C. Thursby (2001), Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major U.S. universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26: 59–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Looy, B., M. Ranga, J. Callaert, K. Debackere, E. Zimmermann (2004), Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: Towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? Research Policy, 33: 425–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, University of Bologna, Via Capo di Lucca 34, 40126, Bologna, Italy

    Nicola Baldini, Rosa Grimaldi & Maurizio Sobrero

Authors
  1. Nicola Baldini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rosa Grimaldi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maurizio Sobrero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicola Baldini.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R. & Sobrero, M. To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics 70, 333–354 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-0206-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-0206-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation