IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v44y2017i4p565-577..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of university technology transfer offices’ commercialization strategies in the Scandinavian countries

Author

Listed:
  • Lars Bengtsson

Abstract

Many European countries have followed the American example by changing the intellectual property laws governing university technology transfer from university inventorship to university ownership. The Scandinavian countries have chosen different paths as Denmark and Norway changed their laws in favor of university ownership, while Sweden retained its university inventor laws. This longitudinal study shows increasing technology transfer organization (TTO) capacity in all three countries regardless of change in intellectual property rights (IPR) framework or not. Danish and Norwegian TTOs increased their use of the license commercialization strategy, with variations at the TTO level, while the Swedish universities TTOs have maintained their use of the spin-off commercialization strategy. The relative use of the two commercialization strategies, licensing and spin-offs, is indirectly influenced by the IPR framework, and more directly by the designs of the policy intent of the university technology transfer system, the government funding system, the TTOs access to business development resources and competence, and monitoring of the university TTOs.

Suggested Citation

  • Lars Bengtsson, 2017. "A comparison of university technology transfer offices’ commercialization strategies in the Scandinavian countries," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(4), pages 565-577.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:44:y:2017:i:4:p:565-577.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scw086
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Geuna, Aldo & Rossi, Federica, 2011. "Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1068-1076, October.
    2. Jacobsson, Staffan & Lindholm-Dahlstrand, Åsa & Elg, Lennart, 2013. "Is the commercialization of European academic R&D weak?—A critical assessment of a dominant belief and associated policy responses," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 874-885.
    3. Alexander, Allen T. & Martin, Dominique Philippe, 2013. "Intermediaries for open innovation: A competence-based comparison of knowledge transfer offices practices," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 38-49.
    4. Sidonia von Ledebur, 2009. "University-owned Patents in West and East Germany and the Abolition of the Professors' Privilege," Working Papers on Innovation and Space 2009-02, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.
    5. Finn Valentin & Rasmus Jensen, 2007. "Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 251-276, June.
    6. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Cédric Schneider, 2011. "Commercializing academic research: the quality of faculty patenting," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 20(5), pages 1403-1437, October.
    7. Jacob, Merle & Lundqvist, Mats & Hellsmark, Hans, 2003. "Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University system: the case of Chalmers University of Technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1555-1568, October.
    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. Junghee Han, 2017. "Technology Commercialization through Sustainable Knowledge Sharing from University-Industry Collaborations, with a Focus on Patent Propensity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-16, October.
    2. Matthew Good & Mirjam Knockaert & Birthe Soppe, 2020. "A typology of technology transfer ecosystems: how structure affects interactions at the science–market divide," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 1405-1431, October.
    3. Samira Yusef Araújo Falani Bezerra & Ana Lúcia Vitale Torkomian, 2024. "Technology Transfer Offices: a Systematic Review of the Literature and Future Perspective," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(1), pages 4455-4488, March.
    4. Marta Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado & Juan-José Nájera-Sánchez & Eva-María Mora-Valentín, 2018. "A Research Agenda on Open Innovation and Entrepreneurship: A Co-Word Analysis," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-17, July.
    5. Chen, Kaihua & Zhang, Chao & Feng, Ze & Zhang, Yi & Ning, Lutao, 2022. "Technology transfer systems and modes of national research institutes: evidence from the Chinese academy of sciences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).
    6. Khachaturov A. Gregory, 2022. "Barriers, impeding the establishment and operation of small innovative enterprises at higher schools in Russia," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(5), pages 2925-2938, October.
    7. Holgersson, Marcus & Aaboen, Lise, 2019. "A literature review of intellectual property management in technology transfer offices: From appropriation to utilization," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    8. Kalantaridis, Christos & Küttim, Merle, 2023. "Multi-dimensional time and university technology commercialisation as opportunity praxis: A realist synthesis of the accumulated literature," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).

    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. Anna Kochenkova & Rosa Grimaldi & Federico Munari, 2016. "Public policy measures in support of knowledge transfer activities: a review of academic literature," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 407-429, June.
    2. Paola Giuri & Federico Munari & Martina Pasquini, 2013. "What Determines University Patent Commercialization? Empirical Evidence on the Role of IPR Ownership," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 488-502, July.
    3. repec:wip:wpaper:4 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Pluvia Zuniga, 2011. "The State of Patenting at Research Institutions in Developing Countries: Policy Approaches and Practices," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 04, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, revised Dec 2011.
    5. Hans K. Hvide & Benjamin F. Jones, 2018. "University Innovation and the Professor's Privilege," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(7), pages 1860-1898, July.
    6. Wipo, 2011. "World Intellectual Property Report 2011- The Changing Face of Innovation," WIPO Economics & Statistics Series, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, number 2011:944, April.
    7. Catalina Martínez & Valerio Sterzi, 2021. "The impact of the abolishment of the professor’s privilege on European university-owned patents," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(3), pages 247-282, March.
    8. Krzysztof Klincewicz & Szymon Szumiał, 2022. "Successful patenting—not only how, but with whom: the importance of patent attorneys," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5111-5137, September.
    9. Giovanni Cerulli & Giovanni Marin & Eleonora Pierucci & Bianca Potì, 2022. "Do company-owned academic patents influence firm performance? Evidence from the Italian industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 242-269, February.
    10. Brantnell, Anders & Baraldi, Enrico, 2022. "Understanding the roles and involvement of technology transfer offices in the commercialization of university research," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    11. Sterzi, Valerio, 2011. "Academic patent value and knowledge transfer in the UK. Does patent ownership matter?," MPRA Paper 34955, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Olaya-Escobar, Erika Sofía & Berbegal-Mirabent, Jasmina & Alegre, Inés, 2020. "Exploring the relationship between service quality of technology transfer offices and researchers’ patenting activity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    13. Sterzi, Valerio, 2013. "Patent quality and ownership: An analysis of UK faculty patenting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 564-576.
    14. Federico Munari & Einar Rasmussen & Laura Toschi & Elisa Villani, 2016. "Determinants of the university technology transfer policy-mix: a cross-national analysis of gap-funding instruments," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(6), pages 1377-1405, December.
    15. Manuel Acosta & Daniel Coronado & M. Ángeles Martínez, 2018. "Does technological diversification spur university patenting?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 96-119, February.
    16. Jacobsson, Staffan & Lindholm-Dahlstrand, Åsa & Elg, Lennart, 2013. "Is the commercialization of European academic R&D weak?—A critical assessment of a dominant belief and associated policy responses," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 874-885.
    17. James A. Cunningham & Paul O’Reilly, 2018. "Macro, meso and micro perspectives of technology transfer," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 545-557, June.
    18. Dirk Czarnitzki & Thorsten Doherr & Katrin Hussinger & Paula Schliessler & Andrew A Toole, 2015. "Individual versus institutional ownership of university-discovered inventions," Working Papers of Department of Management, Strategy and Innovation, Leuven 482370, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Management, Strategy and Innovation, Leuven.
    19. Federico Munari & Martina Pasquini & Laura Toschi, 2015. "From the lab to the stock market? The characteristics and impact of university-oriented seed funds in Europe," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 948-975, December.
    20. Soares, Thiago J. & Torkomian, Ana L.V. & Nagano, Marcelo Seido, 2020. "University regulations, regional development and technology transfer: The case of Brazil," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    21. Caviggioli, Federico & De Marco, Antonio & Montobbio, Fabio & Ughetto, Elisa, 2020. "The licensing and selling of inventions by US universities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).

    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:oup:scippl:v:44:y:2017:i:4:p:565-577.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.