Innovation, Technology and Entrepreneurship Global Practice

Public Disclosure Authorized

90534 Innovation, Technology and Entrepreneurship Global Practice

Public Policies to Foster Knowledge Transfer from Public Research Organizations




By Paulo Correa and Pluvia Zuniga

March 2013

Executive Summary This Policy Brief reviews the rationale underlying public policy for technology transfer, and provides examples of policies and programs to foster technology transfer from Public Research Organizations (PROs). It emphasizes a specific mechanism of technology transfer—namely, “research commercialization,” also known as “technology commercialization.” This type of technology transfer entails licensing, spin-offs, and research collaboration between science and industry. Yet it is important to keep in mind that other mechanisms of knowledge transfer (e.g., technical consultancy) may be more suitable during early stages of country development. The policy brief also emphasizes knowledge transfer from PROs, but developing countries should continue looking for ways to tap into the internationally available pool of knowledge. Universities and research institutes are large beneficiaries of public investments in research and development (R&D). The pace and effectiveness through which research outputs—or, more broadly, academic knowledge— are transformed into new or better products and processes has a substantial impact on the contribution of those public investments to economic development. By improving the process of knowledge transfer from PROs, countries can increase innovation and thereby raise productivity, create better job opportunities, and address societal challenges such as climate change and food security. Not surprisingly, governments in high-income economies have been actively searching for new ways to improve knowledge transfer from PROs. This policy brief emphasizes well-documented measures rather than attempting to cover the vast amount of ongoing policy experimentation. It draws mainly, although not exclusively, on the experience of high-income countries in which policy reforms have been in place for more than 30 years. It does not imply, however, that the lessons learned could be immediately transplanted to developing economies. Rather, the authors try to clarify to the extent possible the institutional, country-specific conditions that lead to success. The key lessons of this policy brief include the following:

The pace and efficiency of technology transfer from PROs matter, especially for developing countries where the opportunity costs of public funding for research are particularly high.

Technology commercialization and, more broadly, knowledge transfer, are hampered by a number of institutional and market failures.

Reforming the incentive regime under which scientists and PROs work, and reducing the bias against their active involvement in technology transfer activities, are essential.

Light, specialized intermediate organizations could help match supply and demand for ideas/knowledge, including better science-industry collaboration.

The relevance of science and technology-parks for industry-science collaboration is mixed, and the risk of overinvesting in infrastructure should be considered carefully. Innovation, Technology and Entrepreneurship Global Practice — Financial & Private Sector Development — March 2013

Public Policies brief 3-11-13.indd 1

1

3/11/13 9:29 AM

Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. CONCEPTS AND POTENTIAL BENEFITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 The Mechanisms of Knowledge Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Technology Transfer between Science and Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Technology Transfer and Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 The Technology Commercialization Process: A Simplified View . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 The Potential Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Contextual Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. INSTITUTIONAL AND MARKET FAILURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Uncertainty and the Ownership Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Incentive Misalignment Problem in a Principal-agent Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Access to Specialized Resources and Supportive Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4. PUBLIC POLICIES AND INSTRUMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Incentives: Governments, PROs and Researchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Industry-science Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Technology Transfer Intermediaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Technology Transfer Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Science and Technology Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Gap Funds (Pre-seed schemes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Mentoring and Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Skills for Technology Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 ANNEX 1: POLICY REFORMS AND INCENTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 ANNEX 2: SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PARKS – GOOD PRACTICES . . . 25 ANNEX 3: PERFORMANCE METRICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 ANNEX 4: ADDITIONAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Programs addressing the product development phase (post-discovery)—e.g., proof of concept/prototype development funds and business-related nurturing services—could foster technology transfer.

An important caveat is that technology transfer, while a process with its own dynamics and bottlenecks, does not evolve in a vacuum. Rather, there are important structural factors outside the realm of technology transfer policies, such as research excellence and productivity, funding allocation between basic and applied research, the portfolio of disciplines, the history of academic entrepreneurship, etc. Overall, developing an effective technology transfer system is a long-term process that depends on both path and context. In this sense, the development of a systemic process of research collaboration between science and industry is more likely to succeed when accompanied of a broader set of structural reforms aimed at improving the conditions for the research and innovation in the country and the impact of public investments in the sector.

Examples of IPR Frameworks and Technology Transfer Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Guidelines for IPR Creation and Management at Universities and Publicly-funded Research Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Technology Transfer Associations and Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

2

March 2013 — Financial & Private Sector Development — Innovation, Technology and Entrepreneurship Global Practice


3/11/13 9:29 AM

1. INTRODUCTION Innovation regained relevance in the economic policy debate during past decade. With this greater prominence, increasing attention has been paid to the process through which ideas and knowledge are transferred from public research organizations (PROs) to the marketplace. Universities and research institutes are large beneficiaries of public investments in research and development (R&D). The pace and effectiveness through which research outputs—or, more broadly, academic knowledge—are transformed into new or better products and processes has a substantial impact on the contribution of those public investments to economic development. By improving the process of knowledge transfer from PROs, countries can increase innovation and thereby raise productivity, create better job opportunities, and address societal challenges such as climate change and food security. Not surprisingly, governments have been actively searching for new ways to improve knowledge transfer from PROs. This Policy Brief reviews the rationale underlying public policy for technology transfer, and provides examples of policies and programs to foster technology transfer from PROs. The brief emphasizes well-documented measures rather than attempting to cover the vast amount of ongoing policy experimentation. While it draws on the experience of high-income countries in which policy reforms have been in place for more than 30 years, it does not imply that the lessons learned could be immediately transplanted to developing economies. Rather, the authors try to clarify to the extent possible the institutional, country-specific conditions that lead to success. The brief emphasizes an specific mechanism of technology transfer—namely, “research commercialization,” also known as “technology commercialization”. This type of technology transfer entails licensing, spinoffs, and technology collaboration. Yet it is important to keep in mind that other mechanisms of knowledge transfer (e.g.,

technical consultancy) may be more suitable under certain circumstances, especially at the early stages of country development when the research pool is in its formative stages. Finally, we emphasize knowledge transfer from PROs, but developing countries should continue looking for ways to tap into the internationally available pool of knowledge. This policy brief is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the different mechanisms of “knowledge transfer” from PROs. Section 3 addresses institutional and market failures related to the process of knowledge transfer. Section 4 discusses how such failures might be corrected, emphasizing incentive-framework, intermediary organizations, funding for product development, and skills. Conclusions are presented in Section 5. The following are key messages of the report: The pace and efficiency of technology transfer from

PROs matter, especially for developing countries where the opportunity costs of public funding for research is particularly high. Technology commercialization and, more broadly,

knowledge transfer, is hampered by a number of institutional and market failures. Reforming the incentive-regime under which scientists

and PROs work, and reducing the bias against their active involvement in technology transfer activities, is essential. Light, specialized intermediate organizations could help

match supply and demand for ideas/knowledge, including better science-industry collaboration. The relevance of science and technology-parks for

industry-science collaboration is mixed, and the risk of overinvesting in physical infrastructure should be considered carefully. Programs addressing the product development phase

(post-discovery)—e.g., proof of concept/prototype development funds and business-related nurturing services—could foster technology transfer.

Innovation, Technology and Entrepreneurship Global Practice — Financial & Private Sector Development — March 2013


3

3/11/13 9:29 AM

2. CONCEPTS AND POTENTIAL BENEFITS 2.1. The Mechanisms of Knowledge Transfer “Knowledge transfer” refers to the multiple channels through which knowledge can be transferred to firms so as to generate economic value. New ideas can be generated by individuals, firms, or research organizations abroad or locally. Knowledge can be codified (e.g., blue-prints, papers, patents, user guides) or tacit (e.g., “know-how,” skills), embedded in persons and developed with practice. Codified knowledge can also be embedded in goods, such as machinery and equipment, and services. Knowledge—technological and non-technological—can be transfer through a range of mechanisms, both formal and informal. The following are discussed further in this brief: Import of capital goods, which enables firms to adopt

internationally available embedded knowledge; Foreign direct investments (FDI) and technology licensing,

which are a source of both codified (e.g. through technology licensing) and or tacit knowledge (e.g. labor mobility and know-how); Product and process standards established between

producers and input providers; Hiring of new graduates and post-graduates, and training

programs provided by higher education and technology institutions; Scientific publications, conferences, networks, and

informal interactions between scientists and firms; and Hiring students and researchers, sharing facilities (joint

labs), personnel mobility, training and education programs, technical consultancy, joint research and contractresearch.

2.2. Technology Transfer between Science and Industry According to Roessner (2000), technology transfer can be defined as the movement of know-how, skills, technical knowledge or technology from one organizational setting to another. Technology transfer from science occurs both formally

4

and informally, as the technology, skills, procedures, methods and expertise from research institutions and universities can be transferred to firms or governmental institutions, generating economic value and industry development. Informal channels include the transfer of knowledge through publications, conferences, and informal exchanges between scientists. Formal channels include training and education, hiring students and researchers from universities and PROs, sharing of equipment and instruments, technology services and consultancy, sponsored research and R&D collaboration, and other forms of technology commercialization. Technology commercialization—also known as research commercialization—refers to the valorization of research and intellectual assets by industry. It implies the selling, licensing of, or contracting of technology services, intellectual assets, and related-knowledge into spinoff creation and R&D collaboration. R&D collaboration is another form of valorization of research, enhancing industry innovation capacity.1 Such collaboration may serve multiple purposes and take place in a variety of forms, such as licensing of technology inputs and/or outputs; cross-licensing, etc. While a narrower concept, the notion of technology commercialization through the exploitation of intellectual property rights (IPRs) has become increasingly important in recent years.2 IPRs facilitate technology transactions by reducing the legal uncertainty surrounding the ownership and protection of inventions. They can be the bedrock on which technology licensing can take place and new technologies can be developed. Yet the relevance of IPRs, particularly patents, as a mechanism of protection against imitation differs across

Cassiman and Veugelers (2005) and Belderbos et al. (2006). IPRs include patents, utility patents, trademarks, copyrights, industrial designs, and other ownership and commercialization rights on intellectual creations resulting, in the case of this note, from scientific research.Working Paper 110, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK. 3 It is important to bear in mind that not all innovations are patentable and not all patents have an economic and technical value (Griliches, 1991, OECD; 2009). Furthermore, not all technologies from scientific research need to be patented in order to reach the markets (So et al., 2008)

1

2



3/11/13 9:29 AM

FIGURE 1: TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND SHAPING FACTORS

Institutional and Legal Framework Incentives Informal rules, norms, customs

Economic Development and Industry Demands

Policy Framework

Scientific publications Dissemination of knowledge via conferences, seminars, meetings with industry, and others

Public Research and Education

Education and training of students/employment University-Industry joint research, extension services, joint research centers

Industry Innovation and New Technological Competencies

Consultancies, contact research, extension services (adoption, certification, engineering services) Technology licensing to established firms and new start-up companies Creation of spinoffs and other forms of academic entrepreneurship

Research Capabilities and Orientation

Coordination, Intermediation, and Supportive Services

Productivity Growth, New Markets, New Industries, Competitiveness (exporting and value chains), Employment

Technology Transfer

Framework Conditions— finance, competition, common law, IPR systems, firm regulation

Source: Authors building on Bercovitz and Feldman (2006) and WIPO (2011).

technologies and industries.3 For instance, patents are more relevant to appropriate returns from innovation in pharmaceuticals, electronics, and chemicals than in other industries (Cohen et al., 2000). In the United States, licensing of patents has been useful in facilitating technology transfer from science in emerging technologies, such as biotechnology and biomedical technologies. Developing countries have started to pay more attention to technology commercialization, although contextual conditions, in terms of both scientific and innovation competences, differ widely from those of developed countries (WIPO, 2011). Most of the technology transfer activity occurs through informal mechanisms, often through ad hoc, short-

term, and small-scale consultancy projects based on isolated initiatives.4 The challenge for both developed and developing countries is to generate a systematic process of technology transfer from PROs to the business sector, maximizing the contribution of public investments in research and innovation for economic growth. From an economic standpoint, inventions that do not

Recent evidence from Argentina (Arza and Vazquez, 2010), Brazil (Rapini et al, 2006; Costa Povoa and Rapini, 2010), Mexico (Dutrenit et al, 2010) and Thailand (Intarakumnerd et al, 2002)) shows that publication, conferences, personal mobility, and training are the most used channels for knowledge transfer.

4



5

3/11/13 9:29 AM

FIGURE 2: INTERMEDIATION AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES TO TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

Skills

Coordination support/ management (TTOs)

Coordination, Intermediation, Support servies

Information Platforms Networking IP Services

Funding of Collaborative Mechanisms

Pre-seed and Gap Funds (prototype, proof-of-concept)

Seed Funds Nurturing Service Incubation

Combined Mechanisms (incubators, accelerators, innovation centers, science and technology parks) Source: Authors

enter the marketplace are essentially idle and may be seen as a waste of scarce economic resources.

2.3. Technology Transfer and Economic Development The development of technology transfer, and the resulting types of opportunities for industry-science interaction, are strongly shaped by the level of economic development. From the demand side, the private sector needs to identify the appropriate types of technology transfer. Different innovation needs mean different technology transfer solutions. When there is a demand for upfront knowledge and absorption conditions exist, technology commercialization solutions (including those that are IPR-based) can be key components of technology transfer programs. In less-developed economies, the needs for diffusion and adaptation are more important than radical innovation. In this context, technology transfer will be more oriented to the provision of basic technical and engineering services (extension services) and supporting incremental innovation, which is mostly based on adoption, adaptation, and assimilation of foreign technologies. International technology transfer—from foreign technology acquisition (trade), FDI and licensing—and knowledge transfer from PROs are complementary mechanisms to enhance firm innovation, and can help companies catch up to their

6

international competitors. Especially in developing countries, international technology transfer is indispensable in obtaining global knowledge. At the same time, the local research capacity is a key element of the country’s absorptive capacity to screen, absorb, and adapt knowledge to local circumstances or to meet local needs (Griffith et al., 2006). It is also essential to generate knowledge that addresses country-specific needs. Not surprisingly, countries from Africa and Asia, although from a relatively small base, increased their research and development (R&D) expenditures by 76 and 43 percent respectively in the 1997-2007 period, with publicly available research accounting for about two-thirds of their total (UNESCO, 2011). In this context, technology transfer is of particular importance given the high opportunity costs of public funds used to finance research.

2.4. The Technology Commercialization Process: A Simplified View Technology transfer does not evolve naturally and linearly from research and the discovery of scientific solutions. Rather, the process often faces unfavorable economic incentives and an inadequate supply of complementary services to translate new ideas into technological and economically viable innovations. Technology commercialization is a multi-stage process involving different stakeholders: researchers, faculties, coordinating/managing organizations, private/public



3/11/13 9:29 AM

technology transfer intermediaries, and recipients (firms or public sector institutions). There are five basic stages of the technology commercialization process, identified below. This process is not necessarily linear, as industry-science links can exist from the start and science-firm interactions may arise at any stage, from conception through development.

evaluated at this early stage for its market potential. A decision needs to be taken in terms of the additional research needed until a patent can be filled and/or technical feasibility and commercial potential can be demonstrated through proofs-ofconcept and/or prototype development.

STEP 4: Proof of concept and prototype are ‘sold’ or transferred to spinoff companies.

Proof of concept and prototypes need then to be licensed to other companies, surrogate entrepreneurs through IPRs agreements or used to established new firms—or academic spinoffs. Product development and marketing is the last phase of the commercialization process and correspond to the effective introduction of the new idea in the marketplace. Firms, private intermediaries, and investors are key partners to foster the development of prototypes based on applied research. Firms are the ones making innovation to happen by engaging in the production and commercialization of products, processes or services.

STEP 5: Product development and marketing.

2.5. The Potential Benefits

The starting point is the generation of a sufficiently large and highly qualified pool of research output. Research output need to be disclosed by researchers, monitored and preliminarily

Technology transfer from research institutions and universities (the “science” sector hereafter) can generate important benefits for economic development. Academic research has

STEP 1: Researchers generate discoveries of high quality. STEP 2: Discoveries are disclosed by researchers. STEP 3: Discoveries are further developed.

FIGURE 3: THE PROCESS OF TECHNOLOGY COMMERCIALIZATION

Identification of Technologies with Potential Commercial Interest

Research

Discovery/ Disclosure

Assessment Technical Value/ Market Potential

Protection Strategy (IPR or not and how)

Attracting Private Partners

Prototype/ Proof-of-Concept

Marketing/ Promotion

Seed Funds Nurturing Service Incubation

Development Gaps TT is a multi-stage process involving different actors: researchers, industry, institutional coordinators (TTOs), public sector agencies, and market and financial intermediaries.

Technology Transfer Assistance

 Licensed to established firms  Joint ventures

Financial and Non-Financial Support

 Spinoffs (licensing and/or ownership



7

3/11/13 9:29 AM

real effects on the economy by increasing the productivity of private sector R&D and the growth of total factor productivity.5 These benefits work through knowledge spillover—derived, for instance, from the dissemination of a paper or the hiring of a researcher by the business sector—and through industryscience collaboration and technology transactions, from simple technical consultancy to licensing of intellectual property. Industry-science collaboration in R&D can entail crossfertilization of ideas and synergies in research, avoiding wasteful duplication of R&D efforts in firms. More generally, industryscience collaboration can leverage technological spillovers through the stimulation of additional private R&D investment.6 Linkages with industry can have enriching effects for research institutions as well,7 although there is a substantial variation in the relevance of science for innovation across industries and the modes of interaction across scientific disciplines.8 R&D collaboration can lead to research complementarities and might even trigger new ideas for both basic and applied research.9 Patent licensing and spinoffs can result in greater access to privately-sponsored research and new sources of employment for students. In the United States, licensing of IPRs from scientific organizations has been fundamental to the emergence of new industries dedicated to scientific instruments, semiconductors, computer software, and biotechnology.10

development and growth. The process encounters several obstacles, including unfavorable or dissuading institutional frameworks, and market failures in the provision of specialized complementary inputs, which dissuade actors from engaging in technology transactions and collaboration. Worldwide, countries are actively seeking new ways to promote technology transfer from research institutions to business, and to enhance the impact of science on national economies.12 In developing countries, there is a clear necessity to enhance technology transfer from public research institutions, especially because most of the national knowledge base is concentrated in the universities. On average, R&D performed by public institutions represents twothirds of the total gross domestic R&D (GERD) in developing countries.13 Provided that the knowledge generated in these organizations is of some value, improving technology transfer is imperative given the relative scarcity of industry-science linkages and the high opportunity cost of public funds.

2.6. Contextual Factors In brief, formal technology transfer from universities and PROs is the result of a combination of contextual factors including (OECD, 2003; WIPO, 2011). Factors include the following: Research capabilities (quality and scale) and research

In spite of these potential benefits, industry-science collaboration is often under-developed and, more broadly, the impact of publicly- funded research on local economies remains largely limited or unknown. The World Bank Enterprise Survey provides data about the main sources of technology transfer for Europe and Central Asia in 2005, indicating that about 75 percent of manufacturing firms in the region consider the acquisition of machinery and equipment the most important means of knowledge acquisition, as compared to less than 1 percent in the case of universities and or public research institutes. Even among high-income countries, significant collaboration between science and industry is difficult to achieve.11 In this sense, the pace and effectiveness through which research outputs or scientific knowledge are transformed into new or better products and process substantially affects the contribution of public investments in R&D to economic

8

orientation—applied vs. basic research and specialization areas;14 See among others Jaffe (1989), Adams (1990), and Belderbos et al (2006). 6 Rosenberg and Nelson (1994). 7 Agrawal and Henderson (2002) and Breschi et al., (2007). 8 Montobbio (2009). 9 Rosenberg (1998) and Azoulay et al., (2006). 10 See Rosenberg and Nelson (1994); and Zucker and Darby (2001). 11 According to the CIS 2006, for instance, less than 50 percent of innovative countries collaborated with public research organizations in all EU countries (with the exception of Finland). 12 Zuniga (2011). 13 UNESCO (2011). 5 See among others Jaffe (1989), Adams (1990), and Belderbos et al (2006). 14 It has been shown that the portfolio of disciplines present at universities (or research institutions) could play a distinctive role in technology commercialization, as some sciences are more likely than others to produce research that can be transferred to industry. Biomedical and engineering faculties prefer to be more strongly associated with higher levels of patenting and licensing activity than the rest of fields (Lach and Schankerman, 2008). 5



3/11/13 9:29 AM

Institutional incentives and regulatory frameworks enabling

and encouraging research institutions and scientists to engage in technology transfer activities; An entrepreneurial culture and willingness to collaborate

with the productive sector; Intermediation support (and technology transfer skills) to

conciliate technology supply with demands or vice-versa, implying assistance in networking, intellectual property management, and contracting services in technology markets; and Access to finance and financial mechanisms for new firm

creation and industry-science collaboration. A fundamental factor in fostering technology commercialization, especially IPR-based, is the capacity of national intellectual property institutions to support the creation of IPRs, and their effective oversight and commercialization. Improving efficiency at patent offices means adhering to international treaties and offices (e.g., European Patent Office); having adequate enforcement mechanisms, efficiency, and timely patent processing and quality controls; and improving information mechanisms, among other things.

3. INSTITUTIONAL AND MARKET FAILURES Technology transfer, particularly technology commercialization, does not flow naturally from the research base to industries and markets. In principle, well-functioning “markets for ideas” constitute an appealing mechanism in which inventors, researchers and scientists supply their inventions, and firms, entrepreneurs, and investors demand them, with a price that clears the market.15 However, several obstacles hinder the process of technology transfer and industry-science collaboration, making technology transactions actually unfeasible or very costly. We summarize such factors in three groups: i) uncertainty and the ownership question; ii) incentive misalignment; and, iii) the need for specialized resources.

3.1. Uncertainty and the Ownership Question From the private sector side, there is a problem of uncertainty regarding the value potential of scientific discoveries. Typically, inventions developed by universities and research institutions are often embryonic and need further investment for development. Such investment involves high risk, since neither the practicality of the inventions nor their market utility has been proven.16 As a result, many inventions remain idle without the development necessary to make them attractive as business opportunities. Failures in technology transfer also occur due to the lack of information mechanisms facilitating matching of supply and demand, and reflecting the inherent difficulties of under-developed technology markets. In addition, the lack of a clear legal framework regarding the creation and exploitation of IPR resulting from research is a source of uncertainty about appropriation of innovation. Such policy gaps discourage firms and potential partners or investors from funding technology development and engaging in collaboration with scientific institutions, further provoking a market failure in the transfer of ideas from science to markets. Firms are often reluctant to invest in technology development and commercialization if the ownership of inventions is uncertain, possibly allowing innovations to be exploited or appropriated by others.

3.2. Incentive Misalignment Problem in a Principal-agent Context Interests and motivations may often differ between actors, which hinders or discourages technology transfer. Adverse

Markets for technology face a number of imperfections that affect their functioning and growth. These imperfections are associated with the nature of knowledge, given that is often difficult to define limits for the uses of technology and procedures for its exploitation, then write such specifications in the contract clauses. Views about the value of technology differ between parties (asymmetric information), which leads to moral hazard situations. As a result, contracts are imperfectly defined, leading to high transaction costs, such as enforcement and monitoring costs, drafting costs, etc.. These in turn affect the formation of prices, market mechanisms, and diffusion of technology (Arora et al., 2000; Arora and Gambardella, 2011).. 16 Based on a survey of 62 universities, Jensen and Thursby (2001) show that over 75 percent of the licensed inventions were at the proof of concept stage and only 12 percent were ready for commercial use. 15



9

3/11/13 9:29 AM

selection and moral hazard problems arises from conflicting interests, uncertainty about the economic and social impact of technologies, and lack of clarity regarding the responsibilities of the different actors.

trading certain academic returns based on scientific achievements (e.g., paper publication) for uncertain compensation or recognition. Incentives to under- or misreport research findings may also emerge from this situation.18

“Adverse selection” refers to the problem of finding the appropriate agent for delegation. This often requires the principal to rely on the agents’ own judgments or actions. Similarly, commercialization often requires subjective assessment of inventions, voluntary disclosures, peer review of the technical quality, and additional expert assessment of market or economic impact.17

According to principal-agent theory, optimally balancing incentives across tasks performed by one “agent” is required for optimal performance. From a public policy perspective, therefore, the question is how to balance the incentive structure of the research sector to encourage research organizations and researchers to devote more resources to commercialization efforts. The following factors must be addressed:

Funding agencies often lack the incentive and capacity to properly monitor and manage those investments in terms of their quality and, more importantly, their commercialization potential. Research results are not seen as a potential economic asset, and additional resources are needed for their management. These factors, coupled with the sometimes conflicting goals of PROs, make it highly unlikely that IPRs will be effectively managed or that public research will commercialized on a systematic basis. The motivations and approaches to research may substantially differ between scientists at research institutions and collaborators in industry. It is often argued that industry is driven by short-term results and ready-to-use technologies, paying particular attention to the speed with patents can be obtained. This leads to a preference to delay publication of research and making ideas public. By contrast, scientists are strongly motivated to publish research results. In addition, researchers are often reluctant to engage into technology transfer activities if reputation and career development are only evaluated on the basis of scientific performance. However, commercialization efforts by researchers are necessary, because embryonic results need to be further developed until a patent can be filed or the technical/commercial potential can be assessed, and most of the knowledge required for development is un-codified and idiosyncratic, making the participation of the researcher essential. By engaging in commercialization efforts, however, researchers may be incurring in a high opportunity cost,

10

Career structures for scientists in academic and public

PROs have traditionally rewarded only academic accomplishments; Employment regulations often establish limitations to the

participation of researchers in entrepreneurial endeavors or joint research activities; Research organizations often lack the legal mandate

and operational flexibility to efficiently manage IPR (e.g., managing a portfolio of spinoff companies); Governments do not hold research organizations

or researchers accountable for the management or commercialization of public research; Financial gains from commercialization efforts are

uncertain to both PROs and researchers; and, Inappropriate regulations lead to excessive bureaucracy or

unnecessary restrictions on the ways researchers interact with firms, thus increasing transaction and financial costs and discouraging technology transfer. At the institutional level, the ability of research institutions to engage in technology transfer activities is often limited by the lack of an enabling regulatory framework that allows the institutions to own and exploit results from government-funded Rasmussen and Gulbrandsen (2009). Researchers are required to disclose their findings so that discoveries are evaluated in order to assess their quality and novelty, as well as their market potential. Such assessments permit institutions to decide which strategy of protection needs to be followed, including whether further investigation is needed. Researchers may behave strategically and avoid disclosing information (or misinforming) to avoid the risk of having to allocate time for commercialization efforts in the future

17 18



3/11/13 9:29 AM

research. Regulations governing funding practices and/or employment rules at public institutions can be inconsistent with technology transfer activities, limiting interactions with industry. Further, regulations governing public research systems (e.g., funding and time allocation rules; secondary employment and firm-creation rules) and the limited autonomy of universities may even prohibit or discourage researchers from engaging in industry-science interaction.

3.3. Access to Specialized Resources and Supportive Mechanisms Each step of the technology transfer process described above requires access to a number of informational, financial, and human resources. These resources are often scarce in the marketplace and therefore expensive. The technology transfer process may be further inhibited by a lack of business experience and commercial skills among academics. Resources are not easily transferable to other activities, cannot be deployed on a needs-basis, and represent fixed costs.19 As returns are highly uncertain and often concentrated in few assets, scale economies are important to distribute the costs of the activity through effective coordinating units. Technology transfer requires a specialized infrastructure and supporting mechanisms, which are not always available. Specialized skills are needed for technology transfer management, and commercialization, yet technology transfer professionals are often in short supply, and internal policies (public sector employment rules and pay scales) may prevent institutions from providing them with competitive salaries. The resources and supportive mechanisms needed to deploy technology commercialization activities fall into three categories: Information. Selling a proof of concept; a prototype, or even a patent is in essence a matching exercise, with all the complexities inherent to this type of activity and potentially high search costs for both parties—the prospective seller (the scientist) and buyer (firm/investor). Information relative to supply and demand—characteristics of the technology, level of novelty, potential usefulness, market competition, industry requirements, prospective investors etc.—are very hard to obtain.20 Valuation of new discoveries (the agreeable

prices for the transaction) are often controversial even when some methodologies are available (such as in the case of patenting)—which increases transaction costs.21 Funding. Similarly, financing is often unavailable for the additional research needed to develop a proof of concept, prototype, or patent. These activities are neither eligible for standard research grants nor attractive options for venture capitalists, constituting a segment of the research commercialization process often called “the valley of death.”22 The private sector is unlikely to supply sufficient early stage financing because the technological risk is too high and difficult to manage. Informational asymmetry between the scientist and the investor, and the moral hazard of the scientist’s incentive to minimize the development efforts, are core challenges faced by the prospective investor at this stage. Skills. Technology transfer professionals must combine expertise in fairly different areas, preferably across a broad range of science fields and economic sectors, and most of this expertise is acquired on the job. These characteristics make such professionals scarce. Public sector employment rules and wage scales often prevent institutions from being able to provide competitive salaries to such experts.23 Professionals from the field of engineering—a discipline that enables the transformation of abstract knowledge into concrete, applied solutions—are often good candidates.24 In this sense, the limited supply of engineers and engineering schools is another pertinent obstacle in developing countries.

4. PUBLIC POLICIES AND INSTRUMENTS How have countries addressed the market and institutional failures described above? In this section we address institutional reforms and policies that have shown success in

The cost of managing IPRs—e.g., from technical and patentability assessments; the application for and the maintaining of a patent in the patent offices of the U.S., E.U., or Japan—are significant. 20 Jensen and Thursby (2001). 21 See Jensen et al., (2003), and Zuniga and Guellec (2009). 22 See Branscomb and Auerswald (2001). 23 Caldera and Debande (2011). 24 Lecuyer (1998). 19



11

3/11/13 9:29 AM

addressing two factors: getting the incentive regime right, and providing supporting services.

4.1. Incentives: Governments, PROs and Researchers International experience shows that institutionalizing a clear, incentive-compatible policy and legal framework is critical for the process of technology transfer. A good incentive framework will align the interests of the key stakeholders involved in this process—government, PROs, and researchers—and will facilitate the development of intermediate institutions that reduce search and transaction costs. It will also mitigate informational asymmetries, provide legal certainty to private investments, and raise awareness. The main components of an efficient policy framework for managing IPR from public funded research include the following definitions: Obligations of stakeholders involved in the technology

transfer process; Rules on the creation and exploitation of property rights;

and Rules regarding conflict of interests and the establishment

of policy safeguards. As discussed above, altering the incentives of key stakeholders requires changing the expected payoffs of their alternatives. One way to do that is by creating a cost of non-compliance with the established rule. In this regard, developed countries have sometimes designated a series of legal responsibilities PRO and researchers that benefit from public funds for research. The U.S Bayh-Dole Act, for instance, transferred to research universities the responsibility for managing IPR related to publicly funded research (originally belonging to the funding agencies). The 1999 Danish Law on Inventions on Public Research Institutions established that researchers must disclose their inventions and assist in the commercialization process when needed.25 These regulations have the advantage of clarifying roles among stakeholders and are easy to monitor. The allocation of ownership rights to publicly-funded research results defines the potential pecuniary reward to PROs and

12

researchers, and is of central importance. Policy frameworks giving PROs legal ownership and commercialization rights introduce clarity and certainty about legal procedures and transactions, allowing universities to develop technology brokers in the form of technology transfer offices (TTOs). In recent years, OECD economies have converged in adopting a legal framework in which ownership is assigned to the university or research institute, rather than to the professor or researcher, adding of some sort of mandatory division of financial benefits emerging from the commercialization of the IPRs with different degrees of flexibility.26 The Bayh-Dole Act, for instance, requires a minimum of 20 percent to be allocated to the researcher, while the Danish law defines an essentially equal distribution between university, department, and researchers.27 Non-monetary rewards are equally or sometimes more relevant than financial returns. While evidence supports the positive role of royalty-sharing in technology licensing in high-income countries,28 a growing body of literature also shows that accessing new ideas and additional funding from industry,29 as well as obtaining academic reputation and prestige, play an important role. For that reason, entrepreneurially oriented universities have looked for ways to reward the academic careers of researchers involved in commercialization efforts, including establishing equivalence between patenting and publishing, and granting sabbaticals for the development of research-related enterprises. In addition, surrogate entrepreneurs have also proven helpful for technology commercialization and firm creation. Franklin et al. (2001) studied start-up formation at universities in the United Kingdom, finding that the universities generating the most start-ups are those that have the most favorable policies regarding external entrepreneurs. The authors suggest that a

Montobbio (2009). WIPO (2011) and Zuniga (2011). 27 Inventor revenue compensation can take the form of a fixed rate of revenues generated from the exploitation of IP and other technological activities, or it can be a non-linear rate. It can also be a lump-sum payment. 28 See Baldini (2009; 2010) and Lach and Schankerman (2008). 29 Thursby et al., (2011). 25 26



3/11/13 9:29 AM

good approach for universities that wish to launch technology transfer start-ups is a combination of academic and surrogate entrepreneurship. As explained by Wright et al. (2007) in their analysis of midrange universities in Europe, the promotion of firm creation should be done with care if a critical mass of researchers has not yet been achieved. If researchers are increasingly absorbed by spinoff creation, the development of research capabilities at institutions could be undermined. In this sense, surrogate entrepreneurs and the involvement of students in

new firms are helpful. This is currently the practice at some Brazilian and Chinese universities. In this context, one particular issue refers to the legal status of PROs as governmental organizations, and researchers and scientists as public servants. The general issue is their subordination to public sector rules not always compatible with the management of IPR. Illustrations of regulatory areas that need to be consistent with technology transfer goals are the legal right of public research organizations to: own spinoff companies; independently select their co-investors (e.g., the

Box 1: Examples of Incentives for University Patenting and Technology Transfer In Brazil, several policy reforms have been undertaken in addition to policy support for TTO creation, industry-science collaboration, and firm creation by universities. Among these are: Since the mid-2000s, a series of incentives has been deployed, including fiscal exemptions for R&D investment and

collaboration, and subsidies for patenting. More flexible procedures to speed up technology transfer and collaborate with firms were also introduced. The 2004 Innovation Law (Law nº 10.973) provided rules and incentives for IPR exploitation and collaborative public-

private research relationships at universities and research institutions. The law enabled the faculty/inventors to share revenue derived from technology commercialization (between 5 and 33 percent of licensing income).a The law encourages the public and private sectors to share staff, funding, and facilities such as laboratories.

Researchers have been able to work in other institutions to conduct joint projects and request special leave if they decide to become involved with a start-up company. In China, increased emphasis has been given to the provision of technology services and firm creation since the mid-1990s. Policy reforms and legal frameworks have been created or revised for such purposes, including: The S&T Advancement Law and the S&T Findings Conversion Law of 1998 included provisions for inventor

compensation and incentives for firm creation. In 2002, a ministerial decree gave PROs rights of IPR ownership and commercialization. Researchers can use research findings as investment for start-up capital (up to 35 percent). University researchers are

allowed to take a part-time job in firms as long as they carry out their academic work. University technology transfer revenues are exempted from business tax, including from technological service income

tax. Source: OECD (2008), WIPO (2011) and Zuniga (2011). a Distribution of income with inventors in public institutions was previously defined in the Art. 93 of the 1998 Law on Industrial Property and spelled out in Presidential Decree No. 2.553. Accordingly, the exact share to be distributed was left to institutional policy, but is not to exceed one-third of the value of the invention (the 2004 Innovation Law maintains this top share restriction).



13

3/11/13 9:29 AM

main researcher); procure goods and services according to good commercial practices rather than more stringent public procurement rules; and, hire and fire competitively and according to business needs. In all cases, while the private sector practices are of some guidance, the fact that those investments are likely funded by taxpayers inevitably introduces some requirements for sound and transparent regulation.

infrastructure and personnel, maximizing knowledge spillovers and innovation opportunities. There is ample evidence of the positive impact of joint research on business innovation.30 The positive impact of industry-science collaboration on firm innovation for developing countries is increasingly pointing to this direction (e.g., CEPAL, 2012 and Crespi and Zuniga, 2011).

Policy and legal frameworks for IPR creation and exploitation at research institutions can take diverse forms. They can be conceived as ad-hoc technology transfer laws with emphasis on IPR creation and exploitation, as in the case of the U.S. Bayh-Dole Act (see Box 2); they can be integrated into intellectual property laws or other common laws such as employment laws and those dictating firm creation; or, they can take the form of Ministerial Decrees (see Annex 1 for a sample of policy frameworks in developing countries). In some countries, recommendations for the management of technology transfer activities, including IPR creation and management, at public-funded research institutions can take the form of general directives or Codes of Practice like those of the European Guidelines, leaving research institutions with the discretion to adopt their own policy schemes.

4.3. Technology Transfer Intermediaries

The use of IPR can, in principle, have both positive and negative repercussions in both research and innovation, if policies are not designed well. IPRs may affect not only the diffusion of new ideas, but also the progress of science and innovation, as incentives for fundamental research may be diverted toward applied research, and ownership of upfront discoveries and research methods may hamper further research activity. The evidence indicates that scientific performance by researchers is compatible with technology transfer activities, but it is inconclusive with respect to the overall implications to the progress of research and innovation (Baldini, 2011; Foray and Lissoni, 2011).

4.2. Industry-science Collaboration Industry-science collaboration in R&D is a major channel of technology transfer. Policy instruments to foster industryscience joint research include research grants, matching grants, and tax-incentives. Increased emphasis is being given to research consortiums where several firms and research institutions collaborate, exchange knowledge, and share

14

Technology transfer intermediaries are organizations dedicated to matching the supply and demand for knowledge. This includes promoting science-industry collaboration. One frequent modality, especially in high-income economies, are TTOs and industry liaison offices (ILOs). Coordinating offices for technology transfer can take a variety of forms dictated by resource constraints and local needs. These include regional or state-level TTOs, public-private consortiums, university groups, and others that may help the organizations save on fixed costs and achieve economies of scale. TTOs may be public organizations or private companies fully owned by the PRO, with the preferred design being also context-specific (see Box 3). Other supportive infrastructure options include information or technology platforms, incubation and innovation centers, technology transfer institutions, and science and technology parks. Incubators can influence the set-up costs for new businesses and influence therefore influence spin-off activity (Siegel et al., 2007). Information platforms aim to match supply and demands for technology. Reduction in information and communication technologies has stimulated the growth of open innovation networks such as Yet2.com, InnoCentive, and TekScout. These connect industry, academic institutions, and public and non-profit organizations with a global network of scientists

For the United States, a study showed that firms taking part in Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) with federal laboratories were significantly superior in terms of technological performance when compared with other firms. According to Hall (2002), these consortia agreements, backed by real budgets and cost-sharing among parties, allowed internalization of spillovers and maximization of innovation possibilities and patenting.

30



3/11/13 9:29 AM

to manage IP and solve problems in engineering, computer science, life sciences, and business, among others (Markan et al. 2008).32

Support for the creation of university-based spin-offs, such

as training for IP and technology transfer management; Promotion of collaborative and contract research,

encompassing the search for partners and funding sources, and networking; and

4.4. Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs) TTOs, a widespread institutional response predominant in OECD economies, are a particular type of organizational arrangement that permits specialization and economies of scale and therefore a more efficient implementation of postresearch commercialization efforts. Experience shows that the most successful institutions are the ones with a specialized organization set-up that devote sufficient resources to allow such coordinating entities to fully deploy their missions.33 Some lessons from experience include: Staff with experience in business and networking have

interdisciplinary competencies to handle the legal, managerial, and technical aspects of inventions, and their contracting;34 The performance of the TTO, when all else is equal, is

highly dependent on the type of contract under which its personnel are hired. Wage scale and performance rewards matter significantly.

Skills formation, an additional activity that can be led by

the regional TTO and that may follow a network approach in providing training, information, and ad-hoc assistance to individual TTOs.

4.5. Science and Technology Parks The primary role of science or technology parks is to enable collaboration between firms and research institutions, facilitating the emergence of spin-off and start-up companies. The implicit assumption is that knowledge spillovers are location-specific, and therefore geographic proximity between firms and research institutions should benefit both. Research institutions can benefit from proximity to the private sector, as firms in science parks influence the type of R&D undertaken by the former (Link and Scott 2003). In addition to geographic proximity to research institutions, science parks usually include business incubator programs that focus on providing support services to start-ups.

TTO participation in revenue is essential, as are a

decentralized organization and financial autonomy;35 The deployment of TTOs requires long-term financial

support and commitment by policymakers. It is estimated to average more than 10 years for TTOs in the United States and Europe to generate sufficient revenues to cover operating costs.36 TTOs are dedicated to coordinate the different activities involving the technology transfer cycle, from invention disclosures, development, diffusion and exploitation of patent policies, to the management of industrial liaison and start-up creation. The following tasks, some conducted in-house and others externally, are often performed by TTOs: Creation and management of IPRs: coordination of

inventions disclosures; the technical assessment of inventions (patentability assessment); general registry of IPRs; market evaluation of technologies; promotion of innovations; networking, partner searching, and other commercialization tasks;

Inspired by the experience of areas such as Silicon Valley in California and Cambridge, England, most of the OECD economies have been supporting the development of science parks. Yet the track record of technology parks as catalysts of technology commercialization is mixed, especially in middleincome countries.37 On the plus side, new technology-based firms in in the parks are found more likely to have links with research institutions than out-of-park firms.37 Swedish technology parks seem to have a positive impact on firm sales and employment growth, though not on profitability.38

Yet2.com connects buyers and sellers of technologies, whereas InnoCentive and TekScout post their challenges on a portal website, where those who solve the problems receive monetary rewards (Markman et. al., 2008) 32 Debackere and Veugelers (2005) and Siegel et al., (2007). 33 Locket and Wright (2005). 34 Caldera and Debande (2011). 35 Nelsen (2007) and Brandt et al., (2005). 36 Dilts and Hackett (2004), Siegel et al.(2003), Radosevic (2006). 37 Lofsten and Lindelof, (2002), (2004). 38 Lofsten and Lindelof (2001), (2004), (2005) 31



15

3/11/13 9:29 AM

Box 2: TTO Design – Different Modalities The Center for Commercialization of Advanced Technology (CCAT) is a consortium of the University of California-San

Diego, San Diego State University, the U.S. Navy, and the Office of Technology Transfer and Commercialization (OTTC) associated with California State University, San Bernardino, United States. Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd. is the technology commercialization office of the Weizmann Institute

of Science (WIS) in Israel. The company has an exclusive agreement with WIS to commercialize intellectual property and generate revenue to support R&D and education. During 2009-2010, there were more than 130 presentations of confidential information to interested companies conducted under signed secrecy agreements, more than 160 patent disclosures submitted by WIS scientists, 65 new license and signed option agreements, and more than 70 funded research projects. Cambridge Enterprise Ltd. is a subsidiary of the University of Cambridge, responsible for the commercialization of

intellectual property and technology services. The company also provides consulting services, assists in contract negotiation, and offers technology transfer services such as management and IP strategy, financing of firm creation, licensing, networking, and marketing). It also manages seed funds and venture capital services via Cambridge Enterprise Seed Funds, Cambridge Enterprise Venture Partner, and local angel investors, and provides business planning and other mentoring services to new firms. The Patent and Valorization Agency, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern AG (PVA-MV AG) is responsible for the screening,

patenting, and commercialization of research results stemming from the regional universities and research institutes in Germany’s federal region of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. The agency works with 3,500 consulting researchers and the nine technology partners. Additionally, the agency is responsible for making the research staff of the technology partners more open to commercialization activities, as well as increasing the number of inventions with market potential and assisting them in matching research projects with demand and industrial trends. The commercialization strategy comprises a broad spectrum of alternative options, ranging from cooperation with the industry in terms of R&D to patenting and licensing, and the creation of start-ups and spin-offs. OTRI CHILE S.A. is a consortium of five universities: Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Universidad de

Concepción, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Universidad Católica del Norte and Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, as well as Confederación de la Producción y el Comercio and the product exporters association ASEXMA CHILE A.G., which represent the business sector. OTRI CHILE protects and transfers results being obtained through applied scientific research that follows national and international business requirements. It accepts potentially protectable inventions from entities of any kind in order to evaluate and manage their patenting processes and, subsequently, to carry out the inventions’ technology transfer to the national or international markets, normally through patent licensing. Sources: CERIM (2009): Good Practice Cases of Central Europe Models for RTT: PVA-MV, SAXEED and Val Deal, available at: http://www.cerim. org/files/wp3_-_good_practices_tt-organisations_final.pdf. Chile: http://www.otrichile.cl/ and www.yedarnd.com/

There are many lessons on the important factors and practices behind high-performing science parks. Some of them are summarized in Annex 2, including private management; active involvement in commercialization efforts; and the provision of incubation services. In this sense, science parks are not necessarily profitable. Indeed, almost half of

16

the parks in the United States have no retained earnings (48 percent), while an additional 27 percent had profits of just 10 percent or less of their operating budget in 2007.39 Based on results of a 2007 survey of 134 technology park managers in the United States, accounting for 77 percent of all parks in the country (Squicciarini, 2007).

39



3/11/13 9:29 AM

One of the key factors affecting the success of parks is the geographic proximity to a research institution that is committed to the commercialization of research. This suggests a common misunderstanding among policy-makers: science parks are not the drivers of research commercialization, but rather, they are enablers of research commercialization. Parks per se cannot ignite the process of commercialization of research if research institutions are not committed to it. In Turkey, for example, a survey about the impact of the technology development zones prepared by the Bank in 2008 showed that at a negligible share of the tenant firms collaborating with universities (4 percent) would not have done so if they had not been located in the science park; one-quarter of the tenant firms declared the services provided to be unattractive or very unattractive. Yet the emphasis on developing science parks was so strong that that there are estimates of 7.3 zones in Turkey for every 10,000 researchers in 2007, compared to 1.2 in the United States.

4.6. Gap Funds (Pre-seed schemes) Gap funds, which fund proof of concept, technology validation, and prototypes, and accelerator funds are an essential component of a successful technology transfer program. They aim to develop research of potential commercial utility and of interest to potential investors, increasing certainty about commercial value of inventions and attracting subsequent investment for either firm creation and/ or partnerships through technology licensing. These schemes fund additional targeted research, market research, and development activities such as refining and implementing designs, verifying application, conducting field studies, preparing demonstrations, building engineering prototypes, and performing beta trials. These activities serve to validate, better define, and add value to IPR, particularly proof of principle research and prototype development.40 Gap funds are often conceived in a two-phase funding program. Phase I basically funds projects in the proof-ofconcept stage, with a goal to make technology commercially relevant and attract new investment. Phase II funds up to a certain period at the co-investment stage, undertaking followon activities in partnership with a non-academic investor. If the firm is a spin-off, funding is complemented or re-directed towards early stage investment funds.40

Yet few studies have examined the rationale and organization of different types of these programs. Rasmussen and Sorhelm (2012) analyzed government schemes in six countries and identified three main categories of funding initiatives. Preseed schemes aim to reduce organizational uncertainty and make the nascent venture attractive to investors. Seed funding schemes provide early-stage equity financing. The seed funding initiatives seek to improve the supply of funding, while there seems to be an increasing number of pre-seed and Proof of Concept schemes seeking to bridge the financing gap from the demand-side by increasing the attractiveness of the spin-offs for investors. Policy instruments to promote IPR creation include the subsidization or exemption of patenting fees for applications from scientific institutions, given that inventions from PROs result from research financed by public means; funding of patenting assessment studies, to identify marketable technology and avoid unnecessary protection; and, support in providing IPR valorization studies. Financial support also targets IP management at research institutions and universities through funding, guidelines, and training. Policy assistance can take the form of a specialized fund, like a patent fund or valorization fund, or it can take the form of direct subsidies or vouchers. International evidence supports the importance of such mechanisms, especially vouchers and technology funds, in the context of firms (see Dutch innovation voucher for SMEs (OECD, 2003) and Maffioli, 2008). To date, there has been relatively few evaluations of such mechanisms focused on scientific institutions, but there are growing indications of their utility, as in the case of Chilean universities and subsidies to patentability assessments to avoid worthless and costly patenting applications.

4.7. Mentoring and Networking Timely access to mentors and networks can be critical in helping entrepreneurs who are seeking to market new Seed funding is needed at early stages to fund technology and product development, and to support business development capabilities such as business planning preparation, commercialization tasks like searching of partners and managerial skills, etc. In a next step, venture capital is usually provided during the first years of development and firm growth. Seed funding may also include management support based on marketing and business and financing knowledge.

40



17

3/11/13 9:29 AM

Box 3: Public Support for IPR Creation and Management The UK government is establishing the National Intellectual Property Management Office to support capacity building

in technology transfer and commercialization of IP, including via partnerships with UK technology transfer offices and staff secondments. Australia’s Commercialization Australia program will provide a range of commercialization support services on the order

of USD 180 million in 2014. To increase awareness and proficiency, in 2010 Norway began offering a grant scheme to support development of new

educational programs for IP at higher education institutions. The United Kingdom has established the IP Fund to provide financial support to institutions for the statutory protection

and maintenance of IPRs. Denmark’s IPR Package and Facilitation of Co-operation on IPR scheme provides about USD 1 million to assist

companies and entrepreneurs in managing IPRs. In Croatia, the Proof of Concept (PoC) program aims at accelerating transformation of research discoveries into

technology applications. The PoC provides non- refundable financing of up to 75 percent of the total expenses in order to facilitate verification and protection of IPR, demonstration of practical technical feasibility, and assessments of the commercial potential of research outputs. In Malaysia, the Technology Fund finances technology pre-commercialization (development of new products/services)

and IP acquisitions. It targets both private and public research institutions, including university-industry R&D projects. In South Africa, the Innovation Fund, in a drive to stimulate the filing of patent applications at research institutions,

has offered a Patent Incentive Fund to reward inventors for each granted South African patent. Awards depend on the number of inventors. Source: OECD STI Outlook (2012) and Zuniga (2011).

products or penetrate new markets gain access to advice on strategic planning and marketing, financial resources, technological resources, etc. Formal mentoring systems or networks, like the “CONNECT” network in the United States, can be a critical source of business advice, including access to potential future investors. Examples are the cases of the Larta Institute and Mexico’s TEchBa Business Acceleration Program: Larta Institute in the U.S. is a private, non-profit organization whose mission is to improve the transition of technological breakthroughs from the lab to the marketplace. Since 1993, Larta has designed and managed mentorship and networking programs to help entrepreneurs find partners and customers in global markets. It has assisted over 3,000 entrepreneurs in developing strategic relationships and raising $1.5 billion in capital.

18

Mexico’s International Business Acceleration Program (TechBA)41 is an international Business Accelerator Program run by Mexico’s Ministry of Economy. A key element to the success of TechBA has been the selection of ecosystems with high innovation drive, such as Silicon Valley in California, Austin in Texas, Phoenix-Scottsdale in Arizona, and the Detroit region in Michigan.42

Source: http://etechba.com/etechba/node/3. To identify companies for the program, TechBA joins the Annual Gazelle Companies Contest, organized by the Ministry of Economy with state governments and private organizations. Once selected companies have successfully completed the pre-acceleration process to validate the firm’s value proposition and the entrepreneur’s commitment, the companies transfer a management team to a TechBA site to begin the acceleration process that enables them to structure a marketing plan, interact with their first clients, and search for alliances or venture capital.

41 42



3/11/13 9:29 AM

4.8. Skills for Technology Transfer Specialized expertise is required to coordinate and manage technology transfer activities. Skills include legal expertise, IPR and technology management, networking skills, business planning, and marketing, among others. An effective technology transfer system requires appropriate management and valorization of IPRs. Setting a strategy for the protection and commercialization of knowledge assets means defining outcome goals, determining protection strategies in regard to IPRs and innovations, searching for partners, negotiating licensing contracts, and engaging in technology exchanges, among other activities. Public support for these necessities can be managed through a specialized fund and in collaboration with education institutions and private intermediaries for the provision of training and the professional development of IPR personnel. To accelerate competence development, policy support may target the building of alliances with equivalent agencies and intermediaries overseas, contracting international specialists in the field, and promoting internships of local staff in institutions abroad.

5. CONCLUSIONS This note discussed the factors affecting the process of technology transfer and the rationale for policy action. It discussed institutional reforms and policy instruments facilitating technology transfer activities at PROs and universities. The note focused particularly on the case of technology commercialization. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for the need to increase the impact of science on economic development. The international experience, however, provides examples and lessons to be considered, though not all policy models have the same relevance across countries. For middle- and lowincome countries, the best technology transfer policies will be those that better serve national needs, in accordance with local circumstances and reforms, and issued in consultation with stakeholders. The promotion of patenting and licensing at universities and PROs should be seen as part of a broader policy program to improve technology transfer and country conditions for innovation.

As this paper explained, success in technology transfer is the result of sustained efforts to bridge the gap between science and industry, and the commitment by research institutions to contribute to economic and social development. It takes time to develop a technology transfer system—a system linking actors in an effective manner and allowing opportunities for technology transfer to flourish. It is a long-term process that is path- and context-dependent, requiring specialized resources for its deployment. In addition, to foster technology transfer, not only do funding and research excellence matter but also institutional and legal incentives are necessary. More broadly, the transformation of research systems into more entrepreneurial institutions entails reforming the governance of research and education systems through increased autonomy, organizational flexibility, commercialization rights, and career incentives, among other aspects. Along with the key measures to be taken into account, we highlighted the following steps to be taken in support of technology transfer: Reforming the incentive regime embedded in the legal

framework under which scientists and PROs operate to reduce the bias against research commercialization and broader collaboration between science and industry; Reviewing the regulation of IPR from publicly funded

research performed by PROs to reduce uncertainty and create clear attribution of rights and responsibilities for IPR management; Developing light, specialized intermediate organizations to

help match the supply and demand for ideas/technology and help develop other forms of science-industry collaborations, such as technology transfer offices; and, Developing complementary resources—human, technical

and financial—for post-discovery activities in research, including proof-of-concept funds and business-related nurturing services. Finally, the development of a systemic process of research collaboration between science and industry is more likely to succeed when implemented within a broader strategy to implement needed reforms of other pieces of the research and innovation system.



19

3/11/13 9:29 AM

Short-term and isolated measures such as the development of TTOs, early stage financing programs, or science parks are unlikely to bring fruitful results if pre-conditions for technology transfer are nonexistent or if they are unaccompanied by broader reforms and policy actions to improve the general conditions for research and innovation. Such tasks require sustained efforts in financial support to both the public and private sector with a long-term commitment to improving national innovation systems.

Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R., and Walsh, J. 2002. “Links and Impacts: the Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D.” Management Science 48 (2002), pp. 1–23.

REFERENCES

Crepon, B., Duguet, E., and Mairessec, J. 1998. “Research, Innovation And Productivity: An Econometric Analysis At The Firm Level,” Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 115–158.

Adams, J.D. 1990. Fundamental Stocks of Knowledge and Productivity Growth. Journal of Political Economy 98 (1990), pp. 673–702.

Debackere, K. and R. Veugelers. 2005. “The role of academic technology transfer organisations in improving industryscience links.” Research Policy 34(3), 321–42.

Arora, A., and A. Gambardella. 2011. “Implications for Energy Innovation from the Chemical Industry,” NBER Chapters, in: Accelerating Energy Innovation: Insights from Multiple Sectors, pages 87–111. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

Debackere, K. and R. Veugelers. 2002. “Improving Industry Science Links through University Technology Transfer Units: An Analysis and a Case,” Open Access publications from Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.

Arora, A., Gambardella, A., Pammolli, F., and Riccaboni, M.. 2000. “The Nature and the Extent of the Market for Technology in Biopharmaceuticals,” MPRA Paper 15977, University Library of Munich, Germany. Azoulay, P., Ding, W., and Stuart, T. 2006. The Effect of Academic Patenting on (Public) Research Output. NBER Working Paper 11917. Baldini, N. 2009. Implementing Bayh-Dole-like Laws: Faculty Problems and Their Impact on University Patenting Activity. Research Policy 38(8), 1217–1224. Belenzon, S. and M. Schankerman. 2007. “Harnessing Success: Determinants of University Technology Licensing Performance,” STICERD – Economics of Industry Papers 44, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE. Branscomb, L. M. and P. Auerswald. Taking Technical Risks: How Innovators, Executives, and Investors Manage High Tech Risks (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2001).

20

Caldera, A. and O. Debande. 2010. “Performance of Spanish Universities in Technology Transfer: An Empirical Analysis,” Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 1160–1173.

Franklin, S., Wright, M., and Lockett, A. 2001. “Academic and Surrogate Entrepreneurs in University Spin-out Companies,” Journal of Technology Transfer, 26 (1–2): 127–141. Foray, D. and F. Lissoni. “University Research and PublicPrivate Interaction,” in Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, Handbooks in Economics, 2010. Hackett, S. M., and D. M. Dilts. 2008. “Inside the Black Box of Business Incubation: Study B – Scale Assessment, Model Refinement, and Incubation Outcomes.” The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33 (5), 439–471. Hall, B. and A. Maffioli. 2008. “Evaluating the Impact of Technology Development Funds in Emerging Economies: Evidence from Latin America,” European Journal of Development Research, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 20(2), pages 172–198. Jaffe, A. B., 1989. “Real Effects of Academic Research,” American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(5), pages 957–70.



3/11/13 9:29 AM

Jensen, R.A., Thursby, J. G., and Thursby, M. C., 2003. “Disclosure and Licensing of University Inventions: ‘The Best We Can Do with the S**t We Get to Work with’,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 1271–1300. Johnson, M., Benin, S., Diao, X. and You, L., 2011. Prioritizing Regional Agricultural R&D Investments In Africa: Incorporating R&D Spillovers And Economywide Effects, International Food Policy Research Institute. Lach, S. and M. Schankerman, 2008. “Incentives and invention in universities,” RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(2), pages 403-–433. Lindelöf, P. and H. Löfsten. 2004. “Proximity as a Resource Base for Competitive Advantage – University-Industry Links for Technology Transfer.” Journal of Technology Transfer, special issue, Vol. 29, No. 3/4, pp 311–326. Link, A. N. and J. T. Scott, 2003. “U.S. Science Parks: the Diffusion of an Innovation and its Effects on the Academic Missions of Universities,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 1323–1356. Löfsten, H. and P. Lindelöf. 2005. “R&D Networks and Product Innovation Patterns of Academic and Nonacademic New Technology-Based Firms on Science Parks.” Technovation – An International Journal of Technical Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 25, No. 9, 1025–1037. Löfsten, H. and P. Lindelöf. 2002. “Science Parks in Sweden – Industrial Renewal and Development?” R&D Management, Vol. 31, Issue 3, pages 309–322. Mowery, D.C. 2005. “The Bayh–Dole Act and HighTechnology Entrepreneurship in U.S. Universities: Chicken, Egg, or Something Else?” Paper prepared for the Eller Centre conference on Entrepreneurship Education and Technology Transfer, University of Arizona. Mowery, D.C. and B. N. Sampat. 2005. Universities in National Innovation Systems. In: J. Fagerberg, R.R. Nelson and D.C. Mowery, Editors, The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005).

Owen-Smith, J. and W. W. Powell. 2001. To Patent or Not: Faculty Decisions and Institutional Success at Technology Transfer, Journal of Technology Transfer 26 (1–2), pp. 99–114. OECD 2003. Turning Science into Business. Patenting at Public Research organizations, OECD: Paris. OTRI Chile 2010. Comercialización de Propiedad Industrial OTRI CHILE S.A. Presentation by OTRI (Oficina de Transferencia de Resultados de Investigación), Santiago, May 2010. O’Shea, R.P., Chugh, H., and Allen, T.J. 2008. Determinants and Consequences of University Spinoff Activity: A Conceptual Framework, The Journal of Technology Transfer 33 (6) (2008), pp. 653–666. Slavo, R. and M. Myrzakhmet. 2006. “Between Vision and Reality: Promoting Innovation Through Technoparks in Kazakhstan,” Working Papers 66, Centre for the Study of Economic and Social Change in Eurpe, School of Slavonic and East European Studies,University College London (SSEES,UCL). Rosenberg, N., and R. R. Nelson. 1994. American Universities and Technical Advance in Industry, Research Policy 23 (1994), pp. 323–348. Saggi, K. 2002. “Trade, Foreign Direct Investment, and International Technology Transfer: A Survey,” World Bank Research Observer, World Bank Group, vol. 17(2), pages 191235, September. Siegel, D. S., Veugelers, R., and Wright, M. 2007. Technology Transfer Offices and Commercialization of University Intellectual Property: Performance and Policy Implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy (2007) 23 (4), pp. 640– 660 Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., and M. Wright. 2003. “Assessing the Impact of University Science Parks on Research Productivity: Exploratory Firm-level Evidence from the United Kingdom,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 1357–1369, November.



21

3/11/13 9:29 AM

Squicciarini, M. 2008. “Science Parks’ Tenants versus Out-ofPark Firms: Who Innovates More? A Duration Model.” Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 45–71. Thursby, M. and R. Jensen, 2001. “Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions,” American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 240–259. Veugelers, R. and B. Cassiman, 2005. “R&D Cooperation between Firms and Universities. Some Empirical Evidence from Belgian Manufacturing,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(5–6), pages 355–379. Wetter, J. J., 2011. “The Impacts of Research and Development Expenditures: The Relationship Between Total Factor Productivity and U.S. Gross Domestic Product Performance,” Springer.

22

Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., and Knockaert, M., 2008. “Mid-Range Universities’ Linkages with Industry: Knowledge Types and the Role of Intermediaries,” Research Policy, Volume 37, Issue 8, Pages 1205–1223. Zucker, L. G. and M. R. Darby, 2001. “Capturing Technological Opportunity via Japan’s Star Scientists: Evidence from Japanese Firms’ Biotech Patents and Products,” The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 26(1–2), pages 37–58. Zuniga, M. P. and D. Guellec, 2009. “Who Licenses out Patents and Why?: Lessons from a Business Survey,” OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2009/5, OECD Publishing.



3/11/13 9:29 AM

ANNEX 1: POLICY REFORMS AND INCENTIVES Policy Frameworks for Technology Commercialization in Selected Low- and Middle-Income Economies Country Brazil

Law/Policy/Decree entitling ownership & inventor rights Ownership: 1996 Patent Law(Law 9279) Inventors: 1998 Law on Industrial Property (Art. 93): maximum of one third of the value of the invention

Russian Federation

Ownership: 1998 Decree and 2003 Revision of the Patent Law

Innovation and related policies

Inventor compensation

Mandatory TTO creation

2004: Innovation Law (Law no. 10.973). Incentives for R&D, collaboration and technology transfer.

YES

YES

5% to 33% of royalties or licensing income

At each institution or shared among institutions

2007–2012: R&D in priority fields of science and technology development in Russian Federation

NO

NO Not mandatory but encouraged

2002: Technology Transfer Network. India

YES

NO

At least 30% of licensing income

Not mandatory but encouraged

1998: the S&T Advancement Law and the S&T Findings Conversion Law 2002: Opinion on Exerting the Role of Universities in S&T Innovation

YES

NO

Varies according to type of transfer


National Research and Development Strategy (R&D Strategy).

YES

YES

At least 20% of licensing income

Mandatory

Second National Plan for Science and Technology Policy 2002-2020

YES

YES

Varying shares according to value of revenue

For public sector R&D institutions

2002 S&T Law

YES

YES

2010 Innovation Law: inventor compensation and TTOs

Up to 70% of income


Ownership: 2004 Scheme of Service for Nigeria’s Federal Research Institutes, Colleges of Agriculture and Allied Institutions

Guidelines on Development of Intellectual Property Policy for Universities and R&D Institutions.

NO

YES

Ownership and inventors:

1997: Magna Carta for Scientists, Engineers, Researchers, and other S&T Personnel in the Government 2002: The National S&T Plan

Only available for PROs

NO

60% (PRO)–40% (inventor)

Creation of a National TTO (1997)

Ownership: 2000 Governmental Ruling. Inventors and clarification of ownership rules: Utilization of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill 2008(under approval)

China

Ownership: 2002 Measures for Intellectual Property Made under Government Funding (entitling patenting) Inventors: S&T Findings Conversion Law

South Africa

Ownership: Patent Law Ownership and inventors: 2010 IP from Publicly Financed R&D Act.

Malaysia

Ownership and inventors: 2009 Intellectual Property Commercialization Policy for Research & Development Projects Funded by the Government of Malaysia

Mexico

Ownership: 1991 Industrial Property law Inventors: Federal Law of Labor and Innovation Law of 2010

Nigeria

Philippines

2009 Technology Transfer Bill

(recommended; left to institutions)

Source: Zuniga (2011).



23

3/11/13 9:29 AM

ANNEX 2: SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PARKS –GOOD PRACTICES Good Practices in the Design and Implementation of ScienceParks Key Factors

1. Geographic Proximity to Research Institution

Rationale

Good Practices

Physical proximity between researchers and entrepreneurs encourages interaction, knowledge spill-overs that promote technology development, transfer, and commercialization.

Mechanisms are needed to stimulate interaction such as: Providing tenant firms with access to specialized university labs and equipment Offering tenant managers adjunct faculty status Allocating staff specifically towards building research partnerships, sometimes hosted within Technology Transfer/Commercialization Offices Arranging internships for students with firms.

2. Cost-Competitive Rent

It is hard to attract firms, especially new start-ups or firms that have not collaborated with universities before, to parks if the rent is above the market rate.

The rent for space in most technoparks is in line with, but not necessarily cheaper than, privately developed alternatives.

3. Provision of Business Incubation Services

Business and commercialization support services are very important for new start-up firms, in particular those with little business or commercialization experience.

Efficient provision of infrastructure services Help in accessing state and other public programs Linking to or providing sources of capital Business planning, marketing and sales strategy advice Technology and market assessment

4. Private Management

Private managers or those affiliated with a university that has a strong commitment to driving innovation through the technology park have stronger incentives to succeed.

In the United States, the management of technology parks is as follows: 43 percent university or university-affiliated non-profit

Successful science parks tend to have a full 26 percent private non-profit time, on-site management team, and staff independent of the university, and caters quickly 14 percent government agency to concerns of firms. 8 percent for-profit developer 5. Tenant Criteria

6. Active Role of Park Management in Supporting Commercialization.

Parks with tenant criteria tend to be located closer to the university and attract firms committed to interacting with the university, leading to more business-university interactions and higher park growth.

Being R&D- or technology-based in the field(s) of core scientific competence of the host university/RDI

Commercialization requires substantial investment in developing prototypes, conducting engineering optimization analysis, and entrepreneurship, in which universities have not been shown to be effective.

Research parks will need to offer support for technology commercialization, including proofof-concept funding.

Committed to interacting with faculty and hiring students

Accessing external financing is critical for parks wishing to stimulate commercialization.

Source: D. S. Siegel, P. Westheadb, M. Wright (2003), A. Link and K. Link (2003), and M. Squicciarini (2007).

24



3/11/13 9:29 AM

ANNEX 3: PERFORMANCE METRICS Because technology involves knowledge that may be embedded in complex processes, it is difficult to quantify and assess the transfer of that knowledge. Successful measurement and analysis must begin with clear concepts and definitions that answer important questions, such as what “technology transfer” means, and which activities and processes are included and excluded.

There is no internationally agreed-upon framework for measuring technology transfer activities, although disclosures, IPR registration, licensing contracts and revenues, and firm creation are the most widely used.43 It is critical, however, that licensing revenues do not become the ultimate goals of TTOs, and therefore such revenues should not be seen as indicators of performance.

Ideally for public policy, indicators of technology transfer in a broader sense would look at the different mechanisms through which technology from science is used by firms. This may include: technology services and research contracting, licensing of know-how and other forms of intellectual property (e.g., utility models, software rights, industrial designs, plant varieties, etc.), the number of research collaborations, mobility of human resources (personnel exchange and student research projects in industry), laboratory sharing with industry, and material transfer agreements, among others.42

Metrics are useful for planning and evaluation monitoring, but several factors should be taken into account when considering such measuring frameworks for evaluating public policy in highly resource-constrained countries. The long time period required for institutions to derive benefits, the interdependence with the national economy and its prospects, and the skewness across institutions in research capabilities, financial strength, and culture call for careful design of methodologies for evaluation and quantification of technology transfer activities. In the early stages, more emphasis needs to be placed on intermediate benchmark measures and less on measures such as license revenues.

As regards measuring performance of technology

commercialization, it is recommended to have measures or indicators covering each step in the value chain, including: Expenditure on research, and the number of publications; Numbers of invention disclosures; Number of patents, number of licenses and the value

derived from licensing; and Value and number of spin-off companies.

Statistical indicators of these transactions are scarce, even in highincome countries, and the information available is typically found in annual reports of technology association managers (e.g., AUTM in the United States and PROTON in Europe, see Arundel and Bodoy, 2010). 44 See Arundel and Bordoy (2010). They explore the possibilities and difficulties of developing internationally comparable output indicators for the commercialization of public science. 43



25

3/11/13 9:29 AM

ANNEX 4: ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Examples of IPR Frameworks and Technology Transfer Laws Malaysia : 2009 Intellectual Property Commercialization

Policy for Research & Development Projects Funded by the Government of Malaysia India: Utilization of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill

2008 (under approval) http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/

media/1229425658/1229425658_The_Protection_and_ Utilisation_of_Public_Funded_Intellectual_Property_ Bill__2008.pdf South Africa: Intellectual Property Rights from Publicly

Financed Research and Development (IPR) Act: http:// www.info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=94343 Bayh Dole Act in the United States of America: http://www.

cptech.org/ip/health/bd/Bayh_Dole.pdf

Guidelines for IPR creation and management at universities and publicly-funded research institutions Guidelines on Developing Intellectual Property Policy for

Universities and R&D Organizations, World Intellectual Property Organization, 2000, Geneva: http://www.wipo.int/ uipc/en/guidelines/pdf/ip_policy.pdf Management of intellectual property in publicly-funded

research organizations: Towards European Guidelines, European Commission (2004), Directorate-General for Research Support for the coherent development of policies: http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/pdf/ iprmanagementguidelines-report.pdf Commission Recommendation on the management of

intellectual property in knowledge transfer activities and Code of Practice for universities and other public research organizations: http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/ download_en/ip_recommendation.pdf

26

Intellectual Asset Management for Universities ,

Intellectual Property Office of the United Kingdom: http:// www.protoneurope.org/download/ipasset-management%20 guide.pdf Commission Communication adopted on 4 April 2007:

“Improving knowledge transfer between research institutions and industry across Europe: embracing open innovation – Implementing the Lisbon agenda” COM(2007)182 . Accompanying Commission staff working document :

“Voluntary guidelines for universities and other research institutions to improve their links with industry across Europe” – SEC(2007)449

Technology Transfer Associations and Networks Red de Propiedad Intelectual e Industrial en

Latinoamérica: http://www.pila-network.org/ Association of University Technology Managers: http://

www.autm.net/home.htm ProTon Europe, the European Knowledge Transfer

Association: http://www.protoneurope.org/ Association of European Science and Technology Transfer

Professionals: http://www.astp.net/ The Association for University Research and Industry

Links: http://www.auril.org.uk/ The University Companies Association (UNICO) :

http://www.unico.org.uk/ The Licensing Executives Society International (LESI Inc.):

http://www.les-europe.org/intro-fr.htm The European Association of Research and Technology

Organizations (EARTO): http://www.earto.org



3/11/13 9:29 AM


3/11/13 9:29 AM


3/11/13 9:29 AM