Inefficiencies in markets for intellectual property rights: experiences of academic and public research institutions

The formal use of such intellectual property rights (IPR) as patents and registered copyright by universities has increased steadily in the last two decades. Mainstream arguments, embedded in economic theory and policy, advocating the use of IPR to protect academic research results are based on the view that IPR marketplaces work well and allow universities to reap significant benefits. However, there is a lack of evidence-based research to justify or critically evaluate these claims. Building upon an original survey of 46 universities and public research organizations in the United Kingdom, this study analyses the quality of the institutions underpinning the markets for patents and copyright, investigating potential inefficiencies that could lead to underperformance of the IPR system. These include ‘IPR market failures’ with respect to search processes and transparency; price negotiation processes; uncertainties in the perception of the economic value of IRP and the relationship with R&D cost. Further sources of underperformance may include ‘institutional failures’ with respect to enforcement and regulation. Particular attention is paid to the role of governance forms (e.g. alternative types of licensing agreements) through which IPR exchanges take place. We find that a high share of universities report market failures in IPR transactions and that the choice of IPR governance forms matter for the obstacles that are encountered. Given the importance of widely disseminating university research outcomes to foster innovation and economic development, the presence of inefficiencies in IPR markets suggests that such objectives could best be achieved by encouraging open distribution of knowledge, rather than privatization of academic knowledge

Stem Cell Research Funding Policies and Dynamic Innovation: A Survey of Open Access and Commercialization Requirements

# The Author(s) 2014. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract This article compares and contrasts the pressures of both open access data sharing and commercialization policies in the context of publicly funded embryonic stem cell research (SCR). First, normative guidelines of international SCR orga-nizations were examined. We then examined SCR funding guidelines and the project evaluation criteria of major funding organizations in the EU, the United Kingdom (UK), Spain, Canada and the United States. Our survey of policies revealed subtle pressures to commercialize research that include: in-creased funding availability for commercialization opportuni-ties, assistance for obtaining intellectual property rights (IPRs) and legislation mandating commercialization. In lieu of open access models, funders are increasingly opting for limited sharing models or “protected commons ” models that make the research available to researchers within the same region or those receiving the same funding. Meanwhile, there still is need for funding agencies to clarify and standardize terms such as “non-profit organizations ” and “for-profit research,” as more universities are pursuing for-profit or commercial opportunities. Keywords Stemcell research(SCR).Humanembryonicstem cells (hESC). Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC). Open access. Data sharing. Commercialization Abbreviations hESC human embryonic stem cells iPSC induced pluripotent stem cells IPRs intellectual property rights MTA material transfer agreement SCR stem cell research SLA simple letter agreement TTO technology transfer offic

Supply-Side Innovation and Technology Commercialization

The majority of research and practice tends to conceptualize innovation as a vertically coupled, intra-organizational process. We expand this perspective by conceptualizing innovation as a vertically decoupled, inter-organizational process and by studying the role of research universities as suppliers of discoveries to this "market for innovation". We combined logic from agency and real options theories to explain why the outcomes of technology commercialization are a function of licensing strategies, the autonomy of technology licensing offices (TLOs), and the incentives bestowed on scientists, research departments, and TLO officers. We rely on data from licensing surveys, interviews with 128 TLO directors, and - for convergent validity - from web-based searches of the TLOs of American universities and the US Patent and Trademark Office. Results suggest that commercialization outcomes (in this case, revenue and start-up creation) are enhanced when TLOs employ diverse licensing strategies, TLOs enjoy greater autonomy, universities share revenues with scientists' departments, and universities compensate TLOs officers well. Results also show that late entrants - typically underperforming universities - inflate royalty shares to scientists as a means to rectify their commercialization record. We conclude with a discussion of this study's contribution to the literature on innovation and technology commercialization. Copyright (c) Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009.

Commercializing university research in diverse settings: moving beyond standardized intellectual property management

We discuss the challenges of managing university intellectual property (IP) for applications in diverse settings that are often inadequately served by standard IP management approaches. Strategies focused on profit appropriation through legal mechanisms and control of key resources may work in some industrial settings, but may hinder innovation in others, leaving promising technologies untapped. Open innovation has been proposed as a solution, yet limited research has been conducted in broader contexts. We present four examples illustrating the challenges for university technology transfer offices (TTOs) attempting to commercialize technologies for diverse applications in unique circumstances—when government regulators are the primary users and when applications involve a number of industries with varying motivations and resources for technology adoption. More open approaches to IP management, coupled with value propositions emphasizing cognitive and sociopolitical legitimacy, can lead to more effective diffusion