La protección de las invenciones mediante patentes en las universidades europeas, japonesas y estadounidenses

  1. Quintás Corredoira, María de los Ángeles 1
  2. Caballero Fernández, Gloria 1
  3. Arévalo Tomé, Raquel 1
  4. Piñeiro García, María Pilar 1
  1. 1 Universidade de Vigo
    info

    Universidade de Vigo

    Vigo, España

    ROR https://ror.org/05rdf8595

Journal:
Management Letters / Cuadernos de Gestión

ISSN: 1131-6837

Year of publication: 2012

Volume: 12

Issue: 1

Pages: 15-38

Type: Article

DOI: 10.5295/CDG.100205MQ DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Management Letters / Cuadernos de Gestión

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

En los últimos años se ha producido en las universidades de todo el mundo una tendencia creciente a proteger sus invenciones a través de derechos de patentes. Este hecho refleja la mayor aplicabilidad de la investigación universitaria y la intención de transferir estos resultados al mundo empresarial. En este trabajo estudiamos las patentes que han solicitado las universidades japonesas, estadounidenses y europeas a través de la vía europea, con el fin de establecer un análisis comparativo entre ellas. Entre los aspectos analizados destacan el nivel de solicitudes que presentan, las áreas tecnológicas en las que se solicitan, la extensión en la protección, el ranking de universidades más activas en la solicitud de patentes y el de las empresas que colaboran con las universidades.

Bibliographic References

  • ACS, Z. y AUDRETSCH, D. (1989): “Patent as a measure of innovative activity”, Kyklos, Vol. 42, Nº 2, pp. 171-180.
  • ACS, Z.; ANSELIN, L. y VARGA, A. (2002): “Patent and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge”, Research Policy, Vol. 31, pp. 1069-1085.
  • ARCHIBUGI, D. y PIANTA, M. (1996): “Innovation surveys and patents as technology indicators: the state of the art”, en OCDE (ed.), Innovation, patents and technological strategies, pp. 17-56.
  • AZAGRA, J. (2004): La contribución de las universidades a la innovación: efectos del fomento de la interacción universidad-empresa y las patentes universitarias, Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Valencia.
  • AZAGRA-CARO J.; CARAYOL, N. y LLERENA, P. (2006): “Patent production at a European research university: exploratory evidence at the laboratory level”, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 31, Nº 3, pp. 257-268.
  • AZAGRA-CARO, J.; ARCHONTAKIS, F; GUTIERREZ-GARCÍA, A. y FERNANDEZ-DE-LU-CIO, I. (2006): “Faculty support for the objectives of university-industry relations versus degree of R&D cooperation: The importance of regional absorptive capacity”, Research Policy, Vol. 35, pp. 37-55.
  • BALDINI, N. (2006): “University patenting and licensing activity: a review of the literature”, Re-search Evaluation, Vol. 15, Nº 3, pp. 197-207.
  • BALDINI, N. (2009): “Implementing Bayh-Dole-like laws: faculty problems and their impact on university patenting activity”, Research Policy, Vol. 38, pp. 1217-1224.
  • BALDINI, N. (2010): “Do royalties really foster university patenting activity? An answer from Italy”, Technovation, Vol. 30, pp. 109-116
  • BONACCORSI, A. y THOMA, G. (2007): “Institutional complementarity and inventive perfor-mance in nano science and technology”, Research Policy, Vol. 36, pp. 813-831.
  • BAS, C. L. y SIERRA, C. (2002): “Location versus home country advantages in R&D activities: some results on multinationals locational strategies”, Research Policy, Vol. 31, pp. 589-609.
  • BASBERG, L. (1983): “Foreign patenting in the US as a technology indicator: the case of Norway”, Research Policy, Vol. 12, pp. 227-237.
  • BASBERG, L. (1987): “Patents and the measurement of technological change: a survey of the litera-ture”, Research Policy, Vol. 16, pp. 131-141.
  • BRICALL, J. M. (2000): Informe Universidad 2000, Conferencia de Rectores de las Universidades Españolas (CRUE). http://www.suc.unam.mx/bricall, consultado en abril de 2005.
  • BULUT, H. y MOSCHINI, G. (2009): “US universities ́net returns from patenting and licensing: a quan-tile regression analysis”, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 18, Nº 2, pp. 123-137.
  • COLLINS, S. y WAKOH, H. (2000): “Universities and technology transfer in Japan: recent reforms in historical perspective”, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 2, pp. 213-222.
  • DESROCHERS, P. (1998): “On the abuse of patents as economic indicators”, The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 1, Nº 4, pp. 51-74.
  • ETZKOWITZ, H. y LEYDESDORFF, L. (1996): “Emergence of a triple helix of university–indus-try–government relations”, Science and Public Policy, Vol. 23, pp. 279–286.
  • ETZKOWITZ, H. y LEYDESDORFF, L. (1997): Universities and the global knowledge economy: A triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Cassell Academic, London.
  • ETZKOWITZ, H. y LEYDESDORFF, L. (2000): “The dynamics of innovation: from national sys-tems and “Mode 2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations”, Research Policy, Vol. 29, pp. 109–123.
  • ETZKOWITZ, H.; WEBSTER, A.; GEBHARDT, C. y CANTISANO, B. R. (2000): “The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial para-digm”, Research Policy, Vol. 29, pp. 313–330.
  • ETZKOWITZ, H. y DZISAH, J. (2008): “Rethinking development: circulation in the triple helix, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 20, Nº 6, pp. 653-666.
  • FREEMAN, C. (1987): Technology policy and economic performance: lessons from Japan, Pinter, London.
  • FUJISUE, K. (1998): “Promotion of academia-industry cooperation in Japan: establishing the law of promoting technology transfer from university to industry in Japan”, Technovation, Vol. 18, Nº 6/7, pp. 371-381.
  • GODIN, B. y GINGRAS, Y. (2000): “The place of universities in the system of knowledge produc-tion”, Research Policy, Vol. 29, pp. 273-278.
  • GIBBONS, M.; LIMOGES, C.; NOWOTNY, H.; SCHWARTZMAN, S.; SCOOT, P. y TROW, M., (1994): The new production of knowledge, Sage Publications.
  • GRILICHES, Z. (1990): “Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey”, Journal of Economic Literature, December, pp. 1661-1707.
  • GRUPP, H. y SCHMOCH, U., (1999): “Patent statistics in the age of globalisation: new legal proce-dures, new analytical methods, new economic interpretation”, Research Policy, Vol. 32, Nº 3/4, pp. 225-245.
  • HICKS, D. (1993): “University-industry research links in Japan”, Policy Sciences, Nº 26, pp. 361-395.
  • HOWELLS, J. y MCKINLAY, C. (1999): Commercialization of university research in Europe, Re-port to the Advisory Council on Science and Technology, Ontario, Canada.
  • LEYDESDORFF, L. (2000): “The triple helix: An evolutionary model of innovations”, Research Policy, Vol. 29, pp. 243–255.
  • LEYDESDORFF, L. y SUN, Y. (2009): “National and international dimensions of the Triple Helix in Japan: University-industry-government versus international coauthorship relations”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, Vol. 60, Nº 4, pp. 778-788.
  • LUNDVALL, B. A. (1988): “Innovation as an interactive process: from user–producer interaction to the national system of innovation”, en Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G. y Soete, L. (Eds.), Technical change and economic theory, Pinter London, pp. 349-269.
  • MAGAZINER, I.C. y REICH, R.B. (1982): Minding America ́s business: The decline and the rise of the American economy, Vintage Books, New York.
  • MANCUSI, M. L. (2000): “International technological specialisation in industrial countries: patterns and dynamics” Working Paper CERPRI, Nº 118, pp. 1-46, Centre for Research on Innova-tion and Internationalisation.
  • MANCUSI, M. L. (2001): “Geographical concentration and the dynamics of countries ́ specializa-tion in technologies”, Working Paper CERPRI, Nº 125, pp. 1-31, Centre for Research on Innova-tion and Internationalisation.
  • MEYER, M. (2006): “Are patenting scintifics the better scholars? An exploratory comparison of in-ventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology”, Research Policy, Vol. 35, pp. 1646-1662.
  • MOWERY, D.; NELSON, E.; SAMPAT, B. y ZIEDONIS, A. (2001): “The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities”, Research Policy, Vol. 30, pp. 99–119.
  • OCDE (1994): The measurement of scientific and technological activities using patent data as sci-ence and technology indicators: patent manual, OCDE, París.
  • OST (OBSERVATOIRE DES SCIENCES ET DES TECHNIQUES) (1998): Science et technologie: indicateurs, Economica, Paris.
  • OWEN-SMITH, J.; RICCABONI, M.; PAMMOLLI, F. y POWELL, W. (2002): “A comparison of US and European university-industry relations in the life sciences”, Management Science, Vol. 48, Nº 1, pp. 24-43.
  • PATEL, P. y PAVITT, K. (1991): “Large firms in the production of the world’s technology: an impor-tant case of non globalisation”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 22, Nº 1, pp. 1-21.
  • PAVITT, K. (1985): “Patent statistics as indicators of innovative activities: possibilities and problems”, Scientometrics, Vol. 7, Nº 1-2, pp. 77-99.
  • PAVITT, K. (1997): “Do patents reflect the useful research output of universities?”, Science Policy Research Unit, Electronic Working Paper Series, paper Nº 6.
  • PÉREZ, F. (2004): “Las universidades en la sociedad del conocimiento: la financiación de la en-señanza superior y la investigación”, en Información Académica, productiva y financiera de las Universidades Españolas: Indicadores universitarios (año 2004), Observatorio Universitario de la CRUE, pp. 43-61.
  • PETERSON, J. y SHARP, M. (1998): Technology policy in the European Union, Macmillan, Bas-ingstoke.
  • RAHM, D.; KIRKLAND, J. y BOZEMAN, B. (2000): University-industry R&D collaboration in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.
  • ROSELL, C. y AGRAWAL A. (2009): “Have university knowledge flows narrowed? Evidence from patent data”, Research Policy, Vol. 38, pp. 1-13.
  • SAAD, M. y ZAWDIE, G. (2008): “Triple helix in developing countries – issues and challenges”, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 20, Nº 6, pp. 649-652.
  • SANDELIN, J. (2005): “Japan’s industry-academic-government collaboration and technology trans-fer practices: a comparison with United States practices”, Journal of Industry-Academia-Gov-ernment, Vol. 1, Nº 3, pp. 1-4.
  • SAMPAT, B.N. (2006): “Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: the world before and after Bayh-Dole”, Research Policy, Vol. 35, pp. 772-789.
  • SPENCER, J.W. (2001): “How relevant is university-based scientific research to private high-tech-nology firms? A United States-Japan comparison”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, Nº 2, pp. 432-440.
  • TASEY, G. (1998): “Comparisons of US and japanase R&D policies”, Japan Information Access Project, Special Reports. http://www.nmjc.org/jiap/specrpts/reports/sp3_1998.html March 1998.
  • TAMADA, S.; NAITO, Y.; KOMADA, F.; GEMBA, K. y SUZUKI, J. (2006): “Significant differ-ence of dependence upon scientific knowledge among different technologies”, Scientometrics, Vol. 68, Nº 2, pp. 289-302.
  • THURSBY, J.; FULLER, A. W. y THURSBY M. (2009): “US faculty patenting: inside and outside the university”, Research Policy, Vol. 38, pp. 14-25.
  • YAMAMOTO, S. (1997): “The Role of the Japanese higher education system in relation to indus-try”, en A. Goto y H. Odagiri (Eds.), Innovation in Japan, Oxford University Press, England, pp. 294-307
Data source: Dialnet