UK universities look beyond the patent policy discourse in their intellectual property strategies

Abstract

In recent years, much emphasis has been placed in the policy discourse on the patenting of academic research outcomes. However, universities produce a wide variety of IP, not all of which is suitable to be patented, or which universities may choose not to patent. The present article, building upon an original survey of 46 universities (about 27% of total) in the United Kingdom, investigates universities' knowledge transfer processes through the exchange of a variety of forms of IP: patents, copyright, open source and non-patented innovations. The analysis concerns: (i) the extent to which universities exchange these forms of IP; (ii) whether they are used in a complementary or substitute way; and how relatively (iii) strategic effective and (iv) market efficient they are, in allowing universities to reach certain objectives (relating to knowledge transfer, competitive positioning, innovation and financial gain). We find that most universities perceive a variety of types of IP to be effective, usually in order to reach different strategic objectives. Certain forms of IP are use more than others for particular purposes, and no IP exchanges in the marketplace are exempt from institutional problems. Our results challenge the Bayh-Dole Act (now adopted in many OECD countries and elsewhere); i.e. whether patents and patent markets are the best tool for knowledge dissemination from research base into use, and other benefits, and whether instead it would be more appropriate to encourage universities to a variety of IP.

University research and knowledge transfer: A dynamic view of ambidexterity in british universities

“…Such engagement can occur through a number of complementary channels, with the most popular ones being contract research, collaborative research and consulting. A number of studies (for example, Andersen and Rossi, 2011;Bruneel et.al., 2010;Perkmann and Walsh, 2008;Perkmann and Walsh, 2009;Phan and Siegel, 2006;Rosli and Rossi, 2016) have emphasized the multiplicity of channels and explored its implications. Henceforth, we use a similar terminology in this paper to distinguish between the two categories of knowledge transfer: the research commercialisation channelencompassing, patents, licensing, university spin outs etc.and academic engagement channels, which includes contract research, collaborative research and consultancies.…”

Current Trends in Science and Technology Policy Research: An Examination of Published Works from 2010–2012

“…Andersen and Rossi () also found that patents had a positive impact on industrial knowledge production. In a study of 46 universities in the UK, patents were seen to result in the most effective knowledge dissemination in the economy.…”

Network Analysis of Open Innovation

“…However, making patents accessible royalty-free did not result in any significant increase in diffusion as measured by citing patents in clean and green technology [13]. In recent years, even though policy discourse has placed much emphasis on the patenting of the outcomes of academic research, it could not confirmed that among several forms of IP (patents, copyright, open source IP, and non-patented innovations) patents are the most effective route for knowledge dissemination of the so-called open innovation channel in the economy [14].…”