747
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Thursby, J., Fuller, A., Thursby, M.: US Faculty Patenting: Inside and Outside the University (2009)
*additional disclosures generate smaller % increases in licenses, which generate smaller % increases in royalties (TTOs generally effective at tapping pool of available technologies in their universities)
===Thursby, J., Fuller, A., Thursby, M.: US Faculty Patenting: Inside and Outside the University (2009)===
@article{thursby2009us,
filename={Thursby et al (2009) - US Faculty Patenting},
}
*only 62.4% of patents by university faculty members of 87 universities were assigned solely to universities
*identifying US university patents by institutional assignment misses significant percentage of faculty innovation in US universities
*higher inventor share increases likelihood of university assignment compared with assignment to a firm where inventor is principal
*possibilities: faculty in low share universities may be more willing to seek outside remuneration via assignment to start-up where they are principal; revenue shares may not affect startup activity but simply reduce number of inventions disclosed to university
Sources
*Faculty names from NRC
*Compared with inventor names in NBER Patent Database
*Excluded faculty who do not patent
Patent/Inventor Pairs
*MIT: 315
*Wisconsin: 232
*Stanford: 223
*UC San Diego: 216
*UC Berkeley: 207
Out of 5811 patents:
*1513 assigned solely to firms
*241 assigned to both firms and universities
*327 unassigned
*faculty are principals in assignee firms for 32.3% of patents assigned solely to firms and 24% of patents assigned to both (lower bound)
=== The Bayh-Dole Act and High-Technology Entrepreneurship in U.S. Universities: Chicken, Egg, or Something Else? (2004) ===
