1 25 Nov 20032nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht1 Academic Patenting in OECD Countries Mario Cervantes,...
-
Upload
jerome-moody -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 25 Nov 20032nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht1 Academic Patenting in OECD Countries Mario Cervantes,...
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
11
Academic Patenting in OECD
Countries
Mario Cervantes, OECD
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
22
Today’s Themes
(1) Academic Patenting as Policy
(2) Concerns about academic patenting
(3) Evidence from the literature
(4) Insights from OECD Survey on Academic Patenting
5) Lessons
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
33
Academic Patenting as PolicyBefore Bayh-Dole 1920-1970s Ad hoc petitions by US universities 1970s- Institutional agreements between Federal
Agencies/Departments & Universities
“ Success” breads emulation Reforms to funding rules in Germany, Japan, Korea Abolishment of professor’s privilege in Denmark,
Germany Austria, Norway Policies based on US “success” - and not on
evidence of under- utilisation of IP by professor inventors
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
44
Academic Patenting as Policy (con’t)
- What is success? Patents and Licenses Royalty Revenue New Products Spin-off companies Good Jobs and Growth
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
55
Academic Patenting as Policy (con’t)
- Stylized facts: US universities held 270 patents in 1970 ;
and 3,617 in 2000. US universities earned $200 million in
licensing revenue in 1991 and $1.2 billion in 2000
390 new firms by 2000. Thousands of jobs, billions to economic
development (MIT, AUTM reports)
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
66
The problem with success
Success in Academic patenting does not happen in isolation
Need markets for technology Need entrepreneurial academics Need tacit knowledge Need institutional structures that give TTOs
independence and credibility vis-a-vis academia and industry
Need management and financial skills Need luck - success is highly skewed
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
77
Concerns about Academic Patenting
1. Concerns with patents in general - scope, quality, patent strategy (to exploit, to defend), fragmentation of IP rights (anti-commons)
2. Concerns about the mission of universities - shift from basic to applied, impact on academic freedom, conflicts of interest, costs and benefits
3. Concerns about academic patents in particular- will they aggravate the shift? Will they block research? Will they stifle other forms of knowledge transfer? Exclusive vs. non-exclusive licenses
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
88
Evidence from the literature(Based on review by Sampat for OECD
Working Paper Series, forthcoming, 2003)
Shift to applied:
Jensen and Thursby 2002- 48% of university inventions are “proofs of concept”
Thursby and Thursby - 44% licensed inventions by firms (n=112) are “ proofs of concept.
(Mowery/Sampat 2001) difficult to disentangle the cause as academic patenting increased in parallel to industry-science linkages
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
99
Evidence from the literatureShift to applied research?
Hendersen, Jaffe and Trajtenberg 1998 found increase in academic patenting was accompanied by decline in quality of patents as measured by citations but not conclusive as to there was a shift towards applied research
Sampat, Mowery Ziedonis (2003) find no “quality decline” after Bayh-Dole.
Mowery et al 2001- based on bio invention disclosures find little evidence
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
1010
Evidence from the literature (con’t)
Does involvement in patenting “crowd out” publication activity ?
Agrawal and Henderson (2002) number of patents positively related to quality of patents as measured by citations
Stephan et al. (2002) based on NSF data find positive relationship between patents and publications
Involvement in post-licensing at the expense of basic research (David 1999, Thursbys,2002)
In summary : evidence is inconclusive
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
1111
Evidence from the literature (con’t)
Effects on secrecy, disclosure: Blumenthal et al. 1997 found 20 of life
science faculty delayed publications, nearly half of them in order to protect patentability
Campbell et al. 2002 found that 47% of academics in genetics were denied data requests resulting in delays in their publications or inability to replicate results
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
1212
Evidence from the literature (con’t)
Effects on research progress: Eisenberg 1999 finds increased administrative
burden and costs in accessing research tools Walsh, Arora and Cohen (2002) - little evidence
that research tool patenting and licensing have halted downstream research
Sampat (2002) finds increase in number and share of citations to non-patent literature in university patents since Bayh-Dole and since 1990
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
1313
Evidence from the literature (con’t)
Effects on research progress :
Universities are patenting more upstream research
Researchers that patent also publish more and hence could be citing more of their or peers’ research in their patents
Effects on access are very dependent on claims and licensing practices
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
1414
Evidence from the literature (con’t)
SUMMARY
- Most academic licenses involve embryonic inventions
- There has not been a dramatic re-orientation from basic to applied
- Evidence of a growth in secrecy and limits on disclosure
- Universities are patenting inputs to research that were previously released in public domain
- Need for more research as well as dissemination of safeguards
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
1515
OECD Survey on Patenting and Licensing - background
To document the laws and regulations that affect the protection and licensing of innovations by PROs
To measure actual PRO IP activity To assess nature of license agreements To identify best practices for framework
conditions and IP management, in an effort to balance PRO commercial objectives with research missions
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
1616
Methodology 2 surveys administered by participating countries
– 1st to national governments on legal framework– 2nd (modelled on AUTM and national surveys) to PROs
on patents and licenses 13 countries administered questionnaire (‘00 or ‘01)
Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, Russia, USA
Questionnaire responses not directly comparable– Mix of univs and PROs dependent on country– Response rates range from 59% to 90 % but some
questions not answered– Normalisation by PRO size or research intensity not possible– Australia and US used existing survey
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
1717
A Focus on Licensing
No int’l comparisons of licensing income Better commercial proxy than patents Captures broader range of IP activity License clauses reveal information
about PRO public mission License info helps create new
indicators: efficiency, income skew
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
1818
Legal Frameworks for IP at PROs are Complex
Intellectual Property Legislation
Employment Laws
Law/rules on government research funding
Contract Law
Leg
al F
ram
ew
ork
sLeg
al F
ram
ew
ork
s
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
1919
Do countries need a Bayh-Dole Act?
Emulation of Bayh-Dole
- Japan; Germany; Korea
Reform of Employment Laws – abolishment of “Professor’s Privilege” at Universities
- Austria, Denmark, Germany, Norway
- Issuance of National “Codes of Practice or “IP policy guidelines”
- Canada, Ireland
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
2020
Trends in regulations IP policies are not well disseminated,
including among faculty and students Administrative or legal requirements to disclose inventions, protect and work
inventions are lacking Royalty sharing rules sometimes set
nationally, but move to greater autonomy at institutions
Non-IP barriers remain: – Government limits to keeping royalty revenue– -limits against equity ownership by universities– Public pay-scales that limit hiring of tech-
transfer professionals
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
2121
TTO Organisation & Managment
Most TTOs are less than 10 years old Most have less than 5 FTE staff Most univ TTOs are integrated into the
university but not dedicated to tech transfer
Informal relations are main channel of tech transfer (own or researcher contacts)
Licensing-in technology is less frequent than licensing-out
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
2222
Most TTOs less than 10 years old, less than 5 FTE staff
Germany
Italy(Univ.)
Italy (PROs)
Korea(Univ.)
Korea (PROs)
Japan
Russia
Norway
Switzerland (Univ.)
Switzerland (PROs)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Structure with less than 5 FTE(% responses)
Es
tab
lis
he
me
nt
aft
er 1
99
0
(% r
esp
on
se
s)
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
2323
Most TTOs are internal to the univ but not dedicated to tech transfer
Denmark
Germany
Korea (Univ.)
Korea (PROs)
Norw ayJapan
Italy
Netherlands (Univ.)
Netherlands (PROs)
Russia
Sw itzerland (Univ.)
Sw itzerland (PROs)
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Internal TTO(% reporting to be integrated into the PRO)
Sp
ecia
lised
on
tec
hn
olo
gy
tran
sfer
(% r
epo
rtin
g d
edic
ated
TT
O)
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
2424
Patent Data
Data refers to patents assigned to institutions
Stock of patents smaller at univs than at other PROs (<20)
Number of patents granted per year per PRO is <10
Most patent applications are in health but others fields - energy, ICT, production technologies present
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
2525
Stock of patents and renewal of portfolio
30 58 43 47 78 40 18 38 54 3320
0
20
40
60
80
100
Ger
man
y
Italy
(Uni
v.)
Belgiu
m
Korea
(PRO
s)
Spain
Norway
Italy
(PRO
s)
Japa
n
Nethe
rland
s
Korea
(Uni
v.)
Switzer
land
(Univ
.)
Switzer
land
(PRO
s)
Siz
e o
f th
e p
aten
t p
ort
folio
(%
res
pons
es)
Less than 10 patents Less than 50 patents
Renewal of the portfolio (less than 10 applications)
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
2626
Licensing Practices
Great variability in number of licenses negotiated, IP type and technology sector
Licensees more often small than large firms, more often domestic than foreign
PROs uneven in their use of safeguards in licensing agreements
No consensus yet on what are good licensing practices
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
2727
Average # of licenses negotiated per PRO: 1-24 per year
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
UnitedStates -
Univ.
GermanyPROs
Netherlands -ALL
Korea ALL Russia ALL AustraliaUniv
Japan ALL SwitzerlandALL
Italy ALL Norway ALL Spain -Univ.
avg
. p
er
PR
O
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
2828
% of licenses negotiated by IP type
Univ% PRO% No. % Univ% PRO%
Patented inventions 8% 8% 9 6% 11% 26%Patent pending 12% 9% 16 11% 17% 23%Non-patented 52% 41% 12 8% 14% 29%Copyrighted material 24% 42% 106 73% 42% 23%Industrial designs 0% 0% 3 2% 5% --Plant breeder's rights 1% 0% 0 0% 1% --Other 2% 0% 0 0% 12% --Total 100% 100% 146 100% 100% 100%
AllNetherlands Norway Switzerland
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
2929
PROs do use safeguard clauses in licenses to protect mission, but do so
inconsistentlyLicense requirements (all apart from the NRLs)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Requirement to w orkthe invention
Requirement to w orkthe invention in the
country
Right for licensee todelay publication of
papers
Reach-throughclauses for the
institution
Licensor has right off irst refusal for future
inventions by thelicensee institution
% r
espo
nses
All Some None
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
3030
Licensing Revenues
Gross license income per PRO varies from 10k - 10m Euros per year across OECD countries
Wide variety in the number of licenses at PROs that are earning income: 1-90 per PRO, median or 0-5 license earn income
In most countries, only 10% active patents in a PRO portfolio are ever licensed and earn revenue in a given year
Cost of patenting and licensing not well documented
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
3131
In most countries, 10% active patents are ever licensed and
earn revenueItaly Japan Norway Spain
PROs All Univ PROs All Univ Univ PROs
Total # of active patents 515 432 277 247 114 781 914 270
% Ever licensed 19% 21% 19% 51% 40% 8% 17% 36%
% Currently earning income
8% n.a. 7% 13% 23% 4% 8% 9%
Netherlands Switzerland
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
3232
Gross licensing revenue by type of PRO in (1 000s)
Year All Univ PRO currency Australia 2000 99 525 79 834 19 691 USD Belgium 2001 240 - - EUR Germany 2001 - - 46 468 EUR Japan 2000 1 397 - - EUR Korea 2001 3 822 1 032 2 790 USD Netherlands 2000 11 400 - - EUR Norway 2001 - 2 000 7 700 EUR Spain 2001 961 - - EUR Switzerland 2001 5 650 2 800 2 850 EUR United States
2000 - 1 297 452 69 600 USD
Russia 2001 1 375 - - EUR
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
3333
Lessons Learned
Legal action can stimulate tech transfer, but national context matters
A change in mindset is needed: more can be done to increase awareness of IP policies and rules at PROs
Monitoring of IPR activities at PROs is ad hoc and weak
Critical size of TTOs larger than present average No one-size fits all model of TTO organisation University vs. non-university PROs in most
countries have taken very different approaches to tech transfer
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
3434
Lessons Learned
IP protection and licensing differs by field/sector
Too much focus by policymakers on patents as outcome hides large variety of IP activity at TTOs
PROs are experimenting with different models of TTO (regional vs. sector)
Good licensing practices need better identification and dissemination
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
3535
Ultimate Goal of Tech Transfer
Too much focus on patenting as opposed to spin-offs or other channels of tech transfer
Unpredictable nature of financial returns
Tech transfer capacity takes time and skills, not just money
Evaluation of short vs. long term benefits of tech transfer is necessary
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
3636
How can governments support IP management at PROs?
Need to establish a clear and coherent IP framework for PROs
Need to provide incentives for PRO reporting and disclosure by inventors
Set example for conflict of interest rules – national research guidelines help
Mobilize National Patent Offices to disseminate information to universities; training to tech transfer professionals
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
3737
How can governments support IP management at PROs?
Subsidizing Patenting and licensing costs at PROs
- Denmark (8 million EUR over 2000-2003)
- Germany (50 million EUR to develop TTOs)
- Japan (exempt TLOs from patent fees)
BUT avoid capture and dependency culture TTO Networking Initiatives
- UK (around hospitals)
- Germany (regional networks)
- Korea (sectoral) Training & Awareness
- United Kingdom
- Leveraging Patent Offices (US, Denmark, Japan, UK)
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
3838
How can governments support IP management at PROs?
Encourage data collection International co-ordination of
surveys is necessary, especially OECD-wide
Need follow-up work on effects of academic patenting
25 Nov 2003 2nd EPIP Conference - Maastricht
3939
www.oecd.org
From OECD Home Page:
Right bar – OECD Online
Bookshop
Right bar – Source OECD