Ownership of ip in europe

Discussion Paper No.

INTRODUCTION

A six university comparison. Research Policy. Question QBA. Jean Ownership of university research Chapter 5. Creating and nurturing innovation ecosystems for high-tech industries - principles for policy-makers. With Perspectives on Colombia and Indonesia. Getting to grips with intellectual property Notes for researchers and research managers.

Your Guide to IP Commercialization. Practical Guide to Consultancy. Practical Guide to Students and IP. The European Union explained: Research and Innovation. Transfer of Technology and Knowledge Sharing for Development. Innovation, Technology and Entrepreneurship Global Practice. Intellectual Property Commercialization.

Policy Options and Practical Instruments. Enhancing the Innovative Performance of Firms. Knowledge Transfer Study Expert Group Report. Making Open Science a Reality.

Rule 1: Get Professional Help

Intellectual Asset Management for Universities. A Guide to Managing Intellectual Property.


  • Licensing in the United Kingdom - Lexology!
  • birth records south windsor ct!
  • sex offenders in your wisconsin neighborhood;
  • CLIENT INTELLIGENCE.

Strategic Decision-Making in Universities. Governance: Policy on Policy Development. Policy Development Procedure. Handbook of Intellectual Property Management. Technology Transfer Practice Manual, 3rd Edition. They had no contact with a Technology Transfer Office to file patent applications, but they had some time to develop a spin-off company. Scientists at the Politecnico de Milano in Italy found that patents are important for their careers and for their present research. The majority responded that they have enough time for spin-off development. Comparing the data from scientists at the Karolinska Institutet with data from scientists working at Aalto University in Finland, we observed higher levels of RC engagement and patenting.

When we compare the data of scientists at Karolinska Institutet with data from scientists at the National University of Ireland at Galway, we observed a much higher RC engagement and patenting rate at the latter institute. Table 5. At the other end of the spectrum, Swedish universities rank low according to those Codes of Practice. But due to the low numbers of responding scientists at each of these universities, the presented figures in the table are not representative for the university at large. We found that entrepreneurship-driven scientists show the highest correlations with RC engagement.

Based upon the statistical analyses with data from European scientists in all disciplines, we conclude that the position of scientists at their university is the most important variable showing the highest correlation with RC engagement, patenting and spin-off formation.

Introduction to Intellectual Property: Crash Course IP 1

In turn, the driving forces of scientists that motivate them to engage with RC are much more important than the IP regimes at their universities. We can also conclude that these services provided at a centrally located TTO play a minor important role compared with the other three variables.

We found that entrepreneurship-driven scientists, at a position of professors in engineering sciences, correlate with the highest levels of RC engagement. Finally, we conclude that the observed paramount important role of professors in RC pathways in all scientific disciplines may provide fertile ground for future policy development in research commercialisation, including IP ownership. Studies on RC and the output of TTOs can easily present a bias when they focus on patents or spin-offs only. By their very nature, patenting and spin-off formation can accommodate the transfer of technology from the faculties of engineering, science or medical schools.

Indeed, at engineering faculties, we found much higher percentages of scientists engaged in research commercialisation, involved with patenting and spin-off formation. However, for scientists in medical schools or life sciences and health, we found figures in the same order of magnitude as compared to scientists in other disciplines. The research questions in this study also addressed knowledge transfer outside the IP system Fini, Lacetera and Shane, , and we included other pathways of RC e. Our findings on patenting by research- and entrepreneurship-driven scientists are in line with studies in Sweden and the UK Hvide and Jones, , Lawton Smith et al.

In some countries, such as Italy and Ireland, these higher rates of academic patenting can be attributed to particular IP policies that stimulate scientists to file patents as an important incentive for their scientific career. Only scientists in Italy were satisfied about the time that their universities allocate to them to develop a spin—off company based upon their own intellectual property. Within the scope of this research on the RC engagement of scientists in Europe, we did not include TTO staff, deans of faculties or boards of universities in the survey.

To avoid unilateral interpretation of the data on RC engagement, we wish to emphasise that the data collected in our survey e. At universities where the formation of spin-offs is not be part of the mission Richards, , special entrepreneurship courses provide students and alumni good opportunities to turn technologies into business with assistance from associate professors Hartmann, Interestingly, we found that the number of involved scientists with spin —offs in Sweden equals almost double the amount of the European average.

With a population of approximately 10 million inhabitants and a limited number of multinational firms, Swedish policy advisors advocate that future economy growth depend on successful start-ups. Free courses on entrepreneurship, soft funding for start- ups and patent applications have attributed to the recent growth of a number of successful start-ups, like Skype or Spotify Techworld, The fact that we surveyed scientists from all disciplines, who participated on a voluntary and unpaid basis, contributed to the collection of unbiased data.

Although the response rate in the survey was low, we have shown that the sample size of respondents was large enough and therefore representative for the target audience of European scientists. Future research in this area will benefit from both larger samples sizes at country and university level.

Intellectual property rights: An overview and implications in pharmaceutical industry

University-level and research funding agencies at the national or European Union levels can also make valuable contributions. A project combining our research methodology and data with the data recorded by university TTOs in Europe e. ASTP-Proton might provide an interesting avenue for future research. We suggest using standardised formats for data collection and including data on the financial budgets for scientific research and research commercialisation.

In the longer term, this line of research can unearth very interesting data from intercontinental comparisons including universities and countries with different innovation systems and RC policies e. Other areas for future research on RC engagement by scientists may include the effects of the reduction in research funding, stricter regulations on the interaction between universities and the private sector Martinez, Lissoni, Sanz- Menendez, The use of appropriate incentives for senior scientists and the effects of the governance of university TTOs Schoen et al. All authors declare no conflict of interest as to their possible involvement with the work at TTOs or personnel working at the Technology Transfer Offices.

Start- ups by recent university graduates and their faculty: Implications for university entrepreneurship policy. Research Policy, 41, Audretsch, D. Link, Donald Siegel and Mike Wright. Arundel, A. Respondent Report of the Knowledge Transfer Study, , www. Brian, M. P Conti, A. Is the US outperforming the EU in university technology licensing? A new perspective on the EU paradox. Research Policy , 40, — Czarnitzki, D. Schliessler, P.

Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations.

FACT SHEET IP JOINT OWNERSHIP - ASTP

The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, Fierce Biotech Frosch, K. Fini, R. Inside or outside the IP system? Business creation in academia, Research Policy , 39, Genua, A. The governance of university knowledge transfer: a critical review of the literature. Minerva, 47, Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and its impact on academic patenting, Research Policy , 40 8 , Giuri, P.

What Determines University Patent Commercialization? Grimpe, C. Haeussler, C. Breaking the ivory tower: academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences in UK and Germany, Research Policy , 40, Hartmann, D. Hvide, H. National Bureau of Economic Research , working paper No. Janssens, M. Regulatory framework regarding ownership of inventions conceived at universities. Lam, A. Working Paper Series, School of Mgt.


  • US, European Views On IP Management And Digital Business;
  • sullivan county tennessee property records;
  • find a person from there address.
  • how to find value of my car.
  • Related content.
  • European Union?
  • Intellectual property rights: An overview and implications in pharmaceutical industry?

Royal Halloway University of London , 42 p. Lawton Smith, H. Lissoni, F. Academic patenting in Europe; an overview of recent research and new perspectives, World Patent Information , 34, Chapter 7.

Intellectual property

Marion, T. The university entrepreneur: a census and survey of attributes and outcomes. Markman, G. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 3 , Martinez, C. Funding and ownership of academic inventions: evidence from a patent- level survey.