Different network typologies in patenting activity of academic inventors through time: the case of Italian chemists in the period 2000–2011

Abstract

In this paper, we present the results of a network analysis applied to academic patent data in a subsector of the chemical field in Italy in the period 2000–2011. In particular, we analyse the micro-level interactions to point out the different network structures shaped by university-owned and university-invented patents. We detected three subnetwork typologies (labelled type A, B, and C) that exemplify different qualitative relational structures as well as different attributions to propriety rights. Type A (open science) exemplifies the typical owned patent; type B (multiple ties) represents the hybrid structure with multiple ties and involvement of academics as individuals and of universities as organisation; type C (disconnected subnetworks) represents the typical invented patent with no role of universities as organisation. The whole network seems to show a breaking point in terms of connectivity around 2005, a year that marks a change in policy rule and strategic orientation of Italian universities towards patenting. After 2005, the number of actors grew disproportionally and the network appears disconnected in several comparable components. Also, the composition in terms of subnetwork types changed. The overall picture seems to underline a big structural change dominated by the important increase of academic patenting both direct (university ownership) and indirect (increasing academic patenting)

Does Productive Mean Active? The Behavior of Occasional and Serial Academic Inventors in Patenting Processes

“…For instance, researchers differ in their entrepreneurial aspirations and abilities (Erikson et al, 2015;Gabrielsson et al, 2013;Owen-Smith and Powell, 2002). The role of social networks and relationships for academics' involvement in patenting and commercialization has also been investigated (Aldridge and Audretsch, 2011;Lissoni, 2010) and varying patterns of inventor-collaboration have been observed in patent ownership data (Capellari and De Stefano, 2016). Thus, notwithstanding the impact of structural and cultural characteristics at the organizational or environmental level, the individual inventors' role in opportunity recognition, exploitation and collaboration initiation appears crucial for commercialization of academic research (D'Este et al, 2012;Goel et al, 2017;Thursby et al, 2001).…”