Academic patenting in Europe: new evidence from the KEINS

database

Francesco Lissoni (Università di Brescia & CESPRI-Università Bocconi)

European Universities Learning to CompeteJune 12, 2008, Stockholm

2

Sources

• Lissoni F., Llerena P., McKelvey M., Sanditov B. (2008), “Academic Patenting in Europe: New Evidence from the KEINS Database” IN THE BOOK Data on France, Italy and Sweden

• Lissoni F., Nuvolari A., Tartari V., “Academic patenting in the Netherlands”, not-yet-a-draft

3

Outline

1. Motivation: re-assessment of academic patenting phenomenon in Europe

2. Academic inventorship and the KEINS database: origin and methodology

3. Academic patenting in Sweden in an international perspective

4. Summing up and research questions from 3.5. More research questions

4

Repeal of HochschullehrerprivilegGermany (2001 Reform of Employee Law), Austria (2002), Denmark (2000, Act on Inventions at Public Research Institutions)

Introduction of HochschullehrerprivilegItaly (2001 Legge Finanziaria)

Titolarity of IPR over public funded researchUK (1998; National Health Service circular), Germany (1998), Belgium (1999; Decree on Education)

IPR awareness campaignsGermany (1998-2002), Sweden (1994; jointly to creation of “Technology Bridging Foundations”), France (1999; 2001)

1. MOTIVATION: Promotion of university patenting in Europe

5

1. MOTIVATION: Is it really necessary to promote university patenting in

Europe?Recent literature suggests that it may be the case that European university produce patents, but do not own them

• EU universities have little or no tradition of self-administration: they have traditionally left IPR management decisions in their professors’ hands, who in turn have left them in their business/govt sponsors’ hands

• In a few countries, professor’s priviledge tradition; almost anywhere, professors are or regard themselves as civil servants, more responsive to central government’s regulations, than to their universities’

• Absence of Bayh-Dole Act + big role (in a few countries) of large national agencies patents in government’s hands

Best way to count university patents in Europe is to look at the inventors, not the applicants KEINS DATABASE!!!

6

2. THE KEINS DATABASE

•Knowledge-based Entrepreneurship, Innovation Networks and Systems in Europe, 2004-2007 (6th FP) / Workpackage 5: Analysis of Scientific Entrepreneurship through Patent & Publications Data KEINS database on France, Italy and Sweden

•Further extensions: Netherlands (done), Denmark and UK (ongoing)

•More extensions and updating: pending application to ESF

7

A closer look at patent documents• Patent data have long been exploited by social

scientists for their rich information contents:– on companies: patent counts as output measure of

innovation production function (Griliches, 1990)– on technologies: studies on the (evolution of) the

techno-logical contents (classification) of patents (Engelsman & Van Raan, 1994; Van Raan, 1997)

– on knowledge diffusion: studies on patent citations, esp. in the geographical space (Jaffe and Trajtenberg, 2002)

• More info, previously unexploited, is now under scrutiny:– accessory info on the value of patents: licensing,

litigation records (go to: http://www.epip.eu/)– INFO ON INVENTORS

2. THE KEINS DATABASE

8

What are info on inventors useful for?

1. More accurate geographical information (most basic, used for long)

2. MOBILITY OF INVENTORS between applicants and across cities/regions (Trajtenberg et al., 2006)

3. RELATIONAL DATA: who knows whom networks of inventors (Breschi and Lissoni, 2004)

4. NAMES DATABASE for matching purposes: academic inventors (KEINS DATABASE; Lissoni et al., 2007) for interview purposes (PATSTAT project)

2. THE KEINS DATABASE

9

All EPO patent applications(1978-2004)

Standardisation of company names/addresses/parent co.

Company-level data (~140k

organizations)

Standardisation of inventors’ names /addresses + Massacrator © routine

Inventor-level data set

Publicaton number,

priority date, IPC class, citations

etc.

Methodology2. THE KEINS DATABASE

10

2. THE KEINS DATABASE

INVENTOR-PROFESSOR

MATCHING EXERCISE

11

3. Academic patenting in Sweden in an international perspective

Table 1. Academic inventors in France, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden

Prof.s (nr) 1

Academic inventors

(nr) 2

Academic inv.

(% prof.)2

Academic inv., incl.

unchecked (nr) 3

Academic inv., incl.

unchecked(% prof.)3

France3018

4 1205 3,99 1822 6,04

Italy3157

3 1353 4,29 1395 4,42

Netherl.2168

4 494 2,30 - -

Sweden1592

0 725 4,55 773 4,86

1 Professors active in 2004 (Italy, Sweden) or 2005 (France, the Netherlands) in Science, Medicine and Engineering2 Data from checked professor-inventor matches (professors confirmed to be the inventors)3 All records, checked and unchecked (excl. records for which professors denied being the inventors)

Academic patent applications*, by country; 1978-2002

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

France Italy Sweden

* Ac. scientists active in 2004 (further restrictions for France)

Nr o

f pat

ents

1978-1993 1994-2002

Netherlands1978-1993: 4381994-2003: 950

14

Table 2b. Academic inventors1, % distribution by discipline

DisciplinesSweden

2 Italy FranceN’land

s

Agricultural & Veterinary 3,7 2,9 0,0 7,3

Biological sciences 18,3 17,2 18,6 21,9

Chemical sciences 15,8 27,7 26,7 9,9

Earth sciences 0,0 0,3 0,1 1,0

Engineering 30,0 28,8 26,2 22,1

Math and info science 1,9 0,9 2,8 2,4

Medical sciences 22.5 16,8 20,1 21,9

Physical sciences 7,6 5,4 5,5 6,3

ALL DISCIPLINES 100 100 100 1001 Professors active in 2004 (Italy, Sweden) or 2005 (France, the Netherlands)2 Info on discipline is missing for 39% of Swedish academic inventors

15

Table 2b-bis. Academic inventors1, % distribution by selected sub-discipline

DisciplinesSwede

n Italy FranceN’land

s

Biological sciencesPharmacology & pharma.

biology 7,9 3,8 5,3 n.a.Life sciences (biological

disciplines) 4,7 11,2 10,7 n.a.Biological disciplines (others) 5,7 1,1 2,7 n.a.

Chemical sciencesChemistry (theoretical) 10,2 7,5 4,0 n.a

Organic & Industrial Chem. 5,7 11,8 19,0 n.aPharmaceutical chemistry n.a. 6,7 3,6 n.a

EngineeringMechanical & Civil eng. 6,3 4,4 2,8 8,3

Information & Electronic eng 16,8 14,2 17,7 13,8Chemical eng.; Energy 6,9 8,4 5,6

Medical sciencesLife sciences (medical) 8,6 6,9 10,5 n.a.

Medical disciplines (others) 13,9 8,9 9,6 n.a.

16

Table 2a. Academic inventors as % of total professors1, by discipline

Disciplines Sweden Italy FranceNetherl

ands

n.a. 3,5 - - -

Agricultural & Veterinary 2,7 1,9 n.a. 3,3

Biological sciences 7,0 4,4 4,4 3,4

Chemical sciences 8,5 12,1 9,4 3,3

Earth sciences 0,0 0,3 0,1 0,7

Engineering 4,5 5,8 5,3 2,8

Math and info science 0,9 1,6 0,6 0,6

Medical sciences 4,6 2,0 4,2 2,0

Physical sciences 4,7 2,7 2,5 1,5

ALL DISCIPLINES 4,5 4,3 4,0 2,3

17

Technological distribution of all the academic patents applications by country ; 1994-2002

0,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

40,0%

50,0%

60,0%

70,0%

80,0%

90,0%

100,0%

The Netherlands France Italy Sw eden

% a

cade

mic

pat

ents

Electronic Instrumentation Materials Chemistry

Pharmacology - Biotechnologies Process Engineering Mechanical Engineering Transports

Consumption goods - Civil Engineering

18

Academic patents as % of all patents by domestic inventors, 1985-2000; all and selected

technologies

Electrical eng.;

Electronics

Instruments

Chemicals; Materials

Pharma; Biotech

All technologies

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

14,0

16,0

18,0

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

% a

cade

mic

vs

tot p

aten

ts

19

APPLICANTSPAT

sMAIN CLASS

ABB 151 Equipment and electrical machines

Ericsson 114 Telecommunications

Pharmacia UpJohn 75 Pharmacology and cosmetics

AstraZeneca 40 Pharmacology and cosmetics

Telia 27 Information Technologies

Siemens 25 Medical technologies

Karolinska 19 Biotechnologies

A & Science Invest 17 Pharmacology and cosmetics

Sandvik 16 Materials, Metallurgy

Kvaerner Pulping 13 Materials treatment

Top ten owners of academic patents in Sweden, 1978-2003

20

APPLICANTS PATs MAIN CLASS

Francia

CNRS 220 Biotech., Medical technology

INSERM 99 Biotech., Organic Chemistry

Total 72 Macromolecular Chemistry, Thermal Processes

France Telecom 55 Telecommunications

Cea 52 Surface treatments, Materials, Metallurgy

Thales 45 Analysis, measure and control technologies, Telecommunications

Rhodia 40 Macromolecular Chemistry, Materials, Metallurgy

Universite Paris VI 42 Biotechnologies

Adir & Co. 38 Organic Chemistry

Institut Pasteur 38 Biotech., Organic Chemistry

Top ten owners of academic patents in France, 1978-2003

21

APPLICANTS PATs MAIN CLASS

ST-Microelectronicss 143 Semiconductors

CNR 111 Chemistry, Materials

ENI 97 Chemistry, Materials

Sigma-Tau 67 Chemistry, Materials

Ausimont 51 Chemistry, Materials

Telecom Italia Gruppo 33 Telecommunications

MIUR 26 Chemistry, Materials

Fidia Gruppo 21 Pharmacology, Biotechnologies

ARS Holding 19 Pharmacology, Biotechnologies

Optical Technologies 19 Equipment & electrical machines

Top ten owners of academic patents in Italy, 1978-2003

22

Top ten owners of academic patents in the Netherlands, 1978-2003

APPLICANTS PATs MAIN CLASS

Philips 236 Electronics

Unilever 98 Pharmacology - Biotechnologies

Leiden University 73 Pharmacology - Biotechnologies

Utrecht University 43 Pharmacology - Biotechnologies

AKZO 43 Instrumentation and Pharmacology Biotechnologies

Delft University 42 Process Engineering

University of Groningen 32 Pharmacology - Biotechnologies

Stichting voor de technische wetenschappen (STW)

31 Instrumentation and Pharmacology Biotechnologies

Leadd (Leiden univ.) 23 Pharmacology - Biotechnologies

University of Amsterdam 22 Pharmacology - Biotechnologies

23

Ownership of academic patents by domestic inventors in the Netherlands, France, Italy, Sweden and the US; 1994-2001

38,7%

10,2% 10,5%4,9%

68,7%

50,6%

61,4%72,0% 80,2%

24,2%8,9%

14,3%5,3%9,0%

24,8%

8,6%

1,6%

3,6%

1,7%0,5%

0,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

40,0%

50,0%

60,0%

70,0%

80,0%

90,0%

100,0%

The Netherlands France Italy Sweden US

% o

f pat

ent a

pplic

ation

s, b

y ty

pe o

f ass

ignee

Universities Firms Individuals GovernmentSource: for France, Italy, Sweden and United States Lissoni et al. (2006).

24

Weight of academic patents on total patents by domestic inventors, by country and

type of ownership (1994-2001)

0,0%

1,0%

2,0%

3,0%

4,0%

5,0%

6,0%

7,0%

University-owned academic

patents (1) (2)

All academic patents% w

eight of

aca

dem

ic p

ate

nt

ap

plica

tions

on t

ota

l ap

plica

tions

US*

France

Italy

Sweden

(1) US univ-owened patent include no-profit organizations (4,2% of tot obs); all data include co-assigned

patents (source: Thursby et al., 2006)

(2) Estimate of weight of univ-owned patents from Mowery and Sampat (2006)

Weight of academic patents on the total patents by domestic inventor, by country and type of ownership (1994-2001)

1,0%

4,0% 4,0%4,3%

6,0%

3,4%

0,3% 0,4%

6,2%

0,3%

0,0%

1,0%

2,0%

3,0%

4,0%

5,0%

6,0%

7,0%

University ow ned academic patents All academic patents

The Netherlands US France Italy Sw eden

25

4. Summing up and research questions Does Europe really fare worse than the US in academic

patenting? YES, in absolute numbers. NO, as % of overall patenting activity, esp. Sweden

Does a “European model” of academic patenting exist? YES, it consists of leaving ownership largely in business companies’ hands. BUT: things are changing: university ownership is increasing (Della Malva, Lissoni, Llerena, 2008) the Netherlands seems to be a partial exception

Ownership patterns for academic patenting are affected both by: IPR regulations Institutional features of academic systems Academic scientists’ incentives to invent-for-patenting,

disclose to universities, and relate to industry

Stratification of universities with respect to patent portfolios

26

5. More research questions Quality of academic patenting citation

analysis

Identity and scientific productivity of academic inventors (Breschi, Lissoni and Montobbio, 2007)

Problems of inventorship attribution (Lissoni and Montobbio, 2008)

27

Average of the received citations in the Netherlands, Italy, France and Sweden. 1994-2002

2,13 2,11 2,162,04

1,92

2,242,30

1,89

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

THE NETHERLANDS ITALY FRANCE SWEDEN

Academic patents Not academic patents

The value of academic patents

28

The value of academic patents