Intellectual property (IP) management: organizational processes and structures, and the role of IP donations

Abstract

This paper examines intellectual property (IP) management in U.S. companies and addresses three questions: What are typical sources of IP? How do companies manage IP? What role do donations of IP play in IP management?We used a combination of in-depth interviews with a sample of 15 companies in Northeast Ohio and an on-line survey to over 7,200 companies nationally. We found that firms develop their IP position from a wide variety of sources such as joint ventures, acquisitions, and consulting contracts. However, internal development is still the primary source of IP. Internal patenting processes follow two general paths, one relying on some type of IP committee and another that simply empowers divisional line managers to make patenting decisions.Organizationally, three structural archetypes of IP management were identified, each with its unique advantages and drawbacks: a centralized structure, a purely decentralized IP structure and a compromise structure involving a divisional assignment where a multi-business unit or division committee oversees IP.Concerning IP donations, the response rate to our on-line survey was too low for us to draw definitive conclusions. IP donations clearly do not appear to be a major phenomenon at the present time. Our survey results suggest that tax benefits are an important driver and that recent tax law changes have diminished the incentives to donate IP. Potential good will benefits constitute another motive. The uncertainty of tax benefits and the costs associated with IP valuation appear to be the main disincentives. The low survey response rate may be attributable to the timing of the survey (fall, 2004, while federal legislation was pending), a lack of interest in IP donations, and the generally low response rates to on-line surveys.

University technology transfer performance in Australia

“…Moreover, this finding agrees with the conclusion of Litan et al (2008) that decentralised UTTOs find "synergies" between faculties and therefore receive more invention disclosures. In contrast, this finding disagree with the finding of Carlsson et al (2008) that centralised UTTOs build better patent expertise and therefore they only choose commercially viable inventions to patent and eventually file more patents.…”

“…In fact, the level of centralisation was tested as a binary variable which did not make provision for hybrid models, where for example, management is centralised and commercialisations teams are decentralised. Such hybrid models are expected to perform better than either purely centralised or decentralised organisational structures as confirmed in previous empirical studies (Carlsson et al, 2008;Huyghe et al, 2014). …”

“…They concluded that having a ''hybrid model'', with central management and decentralised divisions, is beneficial for spin-off creation. Carlsson et al (2008) investigated centralisation of IP management units at US companies. They identified three orientations, namely centralised, compromise (semi-centralised) and decentralised.…”

Embracing Open Innovation to Acquire External Ideas and Technologies and to Transfer Internal Ideas and Technologies Outside

“…Philanthropic donations of non-core IATs may create an ecosystem that can directly/indirectly bring benefits for the parent firms. However, the number of studies on non-core IATs is very scarce (Anokhin et al, 2011;Carlsson et al, 2008;Gans and Stern, 2010). Thus, this dissertation increases understanding on various aspects of non-core IATs.…”

Como os núcleos de inovação tecnológica dos institutos públicos de pesquisa podem contribuir para os resultados de inovação do Estado de São Paulo: um estudo de caso dos institutos da administração direta do governo do Estado

“…No que se refere às estruturas organizacionais dos NIT, há pouca evidência na literatura de como eles estão organizados. A literatura aponta, principalmente, três modelos: estrutura centralizada, descentralizada e híbrida (Litan et al, 2007;Jones-Evans et al, 1999;Carlsson et al, 2008;Debackere & Veugelers, 2005;Bercovitz et al, 2001) Há um ponto de discussão em relação aos benefícios de se descentralizar e centralizar as atividades do NIT, sendo que, de uma maneira geral, os principais benefícios da estrutura centralizada são: otimização das competências e possibilidade de se identificar sinergias entre todas as unidades, enquanto que o principal benefício da estrutura descentralizada é o ganho de agilidade (Litan et al, 2007;Carlsson et al, 2008). Deste modo, podemos concluir que a melhor proposta é a estrutura híbrida, ou semicentralizada (Bercovitz et al, 2001;Carlsson et al, 2008).…”