IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jtecht/v45y2020i6d10.1007_s10961-020-09827-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The valorization of non-patent intellectual property in academic medical centers

Author

Listed:
  • Kieren Marr

    (Johns Hopkins Medicine)

  • Phillip Phan

    (Johns Hopkins University)

Abstract

Turning university research output into useful products such as drugs, devices and diagnostics requires skills, knowledge, and resources traditionally attributed to private industry. When it comes to intangibles such as care delivery models, informatics and algorithms, and the software behind smart wearables, the commercialization challenges are even greater. With notable exceptions, Academic Medical Centers have typically not excelled in advancing commercialization of such non-patent intellectual property (IP). We believe that this is in part because the traditional closed form university IP policy, formulated since Bayh–Dole (1980), is ill-suited to non-patent IP. In this paper, we reflect on the evolving challenges that new forms of healthcare-related discoveries, specifically non-patent IP, are placing on the traditional university intellectual property and technology transfer regime, and to offer suggestions on how universities can begin to modernize their IP policies to support the valorization of non-patent IP.

Suggested Citation

  • Kieren Marr & Phillip Phan, 2020. "The valorization of non-patent intellectual property in academic medical centers," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1823-1841, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:45:y:2020:i:6:d:10.1007_s10961-020-09827-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10961-020-09827-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10961-020-09827-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10961-020-09827-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lee Fleming & David M. Waguespack, 2007. "Brokerage, Boundary Spanning, and Leadership in Open Innovation Communities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 165-180, April.
    2. Siegel, Donald S. & Waldman, David & Link, Albert, 2003. "Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 27-48, January.
    3. Lars Wiethaus, 2006. "Cooperation or competition in R&D when innovation and absorption are costly," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(6), pages 569-589.
    4. Amalya L. Oliver & Kathleen Montgomery & Shimrit Barda, 2020. "The multi-level process of trust and learning in university–industry innovation collaborations," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 758-779, June.
    5. Maribel Guerrero & David Urbano, 2019. "Effectiveness of technology transfer policies and legislation in fostering entrepreneurial innovations across continents: an overview," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 1347-1366, October.
    6. Elias G. Carayannis & Dirk Meissner, 2017. "Glocal targeted open innovation: challenges, opportunities and implications for theory, policy and practice," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 236-252, April.
    7. Phan, Phillip H. & Siegel, Donald S., 2006. "The Effectiveness of University Technology Transfer," Foundations and Trends(R) in Entrepreneurship, now publishers, vol. 2(2), pages 77-144, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brown, Austin R. & Wood, Matthew S. & Scheaf, David J., 2022. "Discovery sells, but who’s buying? An empirical investigation of entrepreneurs’ technology license decisions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 403-415.
    2. Michael J. Hall, 2022. "New technology transfer metrics for the National Institute of Standards and Technology," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1573-1583, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Francisco I. Vega-Gomez & Francisco J. Miranda-Gonzalez, 2021. "Choosing between Formal and Informal Technology Transfer Channels: Determining Factors among Spanish Academicians," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-17, February.
    2. Robert Huggins & Daniel Prokop & Piers Thompson, 2020. "Universities and open innovation: the determinants of network centrality," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 718-757, June.
    3. Fini, Riccardo & Grimaldi, Rosa & Meoli, Azzurra, 2020. "The effectiveness of university regulations to foster science-based entrepreneurship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(10).
    4. Nivedita Mukherji & Jonathan Silberman, 2021. "Knowledge flows between universities and industry: the impact of distance, technological compatibility, and the ability to diffuse knowledge," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 223-257, February.
    5. Giorgio Calcagnini & Germana Giombini & Paolo Liberati & Giuseppe Travaglini, 2019. "Technology transfer with search intensity and project advertising," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 1529-1546, October.
    6. Johnson, William H.A., 2011. "Managing university technology development using organizational control theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 842-852, July.
    7. Victoria Galán-Muros & Peter Sijde & Peter Groenewegen & Thomas Baaken, 2017. "Nurture over nature: How do European universities support their collaboration with business?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 184-205, February.
    8. O’Kane, Conor & Mangematin, Vincent & Geoghegan, Will & Fitzgerald, Ciara, 2015. "University technology transfer offices: The search for identity to build legitimacy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 421-437.
    9. Erikson, Truls & Knockaert, Mirjam & Foo, Maw Der, 2015. "Enterprising scientists: The shaping role of norms, experience and scientific productivity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 211-221.
    10. Claudia Curi & Cinzia Daraio & Patrick Llerena, 2012. "University technology transfer: how (in)efficient are French universities?," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 36(3), pages 629-654.
    11. Sándor Huszár & Szabolcs Prónay & Norbert Buzás, 2016. "Examining the differences between the motivations of traditional and entrepreneurial scientists," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-22, December.
    12. Good, Matthew & Knockaert, Mirjam & Soppe, Birthe & Wright, Mike, 2019. "The technology transfer ecosystem in academia. An organizational design perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 82, pages 35-50.
    13. Irene Martín-Rubio & Diego Andina, 2016. "University Knowledge Transfer Offices and Social Responsibility," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-19, December.
    14. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Luca Secondi & Enza Setteducati & Alessio Ancaiani, 2014. "Participation and commitment in third-party research funding: evidence from Italian Universities," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 169-198, April.
    15. Christopher S. Hayter, 2013. "Harnessing University Entrepreneurship for Economic Growth," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 27(1), pages 18-28, February.
    16. Victoria Galan-Muros & Todd Davey, 2019. "The UBC ecosystem: putting together a comprehensive framework for university-business cooperation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 1311-1346, August.
    17. Annelore Huyghe & Mirjam Knockaert & Mike Wright & Evila Piva, 2014. "Technology transfer offices as boundary spanners in the pre-spin-off process: the case of a hybrid model," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 289-307, August.
    18. Giuliano Sansone & Daniele Battaglia & Paolo Landoni & Emilio Paolucci, 2021. "Academic spinoffs: the role of entrepreneurship education," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 369-399, March.
    19. Perkmann, Markus & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Autio, Erkko & Broström, Anders & D’Este, Pablo & Fini, Riccardo & Geuna, Aldo & Grimaldi, Rosa & Hughes, Alan & Krabel, Stefan & Kitson, Mi, 2013. "Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 423-442.
    20. Devrim Göktepe-Hulten & Prashanth Mahagaonkar, 2010. "Inventing and patenting activities of scientists: in the expectation of money or reputation?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 401-423, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Non-patent intellectual property; University technology transfer policies; Work-for-hire policy; Academic medical centers;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L26 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Entrepreneurship
    • M13 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - New Firms; Startups
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • O36 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Open Innovation

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:45:y:2020:i:6:d:10.1007_s10961-020-09827-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.