Non-profit versus For-profit Medical Institutions and the Commercialization of Invention
| Academic Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | Non-profit versus For-profit Medical Institutions and the Commercialization of Invention |
| Author | Catherine Kirby, Ed Egan |
| Status | Tabled |
| © edegan.com, 2016 | |
Data
- Grant Data
- Clinical Trial Data
- Our data on Medical Centers
- Core Patent Data
- Patent Assignment Data
- VentureXpert
General Idea
Clinical trials are crucial for many biotech/life-science innovations. They generally can not take place at the same institution that conceived the invention. Clinical trials can take place at non-profit or for-profit institutions. Invention can take place in for-profit/non-profit incumbents, startups, academia, etc. Invention may be funded by grants and may result (perhaps post phase 2 trial) in patents. For-profit institutions that conduct clinical trials have market-based incentives to align the innovation paths of those they work with, non-profits do not. We should therefore expect to see startups and for-profit incumbents engage more with for-profit clinical trial institutions. We could identify causality on the for/non-profit effect if some clinical trial institutions switch status.
Measures of the relationship
- Patents can (and frequently do) have more than one assignee at a time. Assignment also changes as patents are sold or exclusively licensed (as well as for other reason). Patents with joint assignment or sequential assignment are relevant.
- Clinical trials have one or more sponsors and one or more locations. Clinical trials jointly sponsored by a startup and a medical center facility or sponsored by a startup and then located at a medical center facility are relevant.
- NIH grants have one or more recipients as well as associated patents and trials
Status
Catherine matched patents, grants, and clinical trials to Medical Centers. She's going to prototype this as a report for the Medical Centers and Grants project.
