1. © Goddard & Isabelle 20061 DRUID Summer Conference June 18 th, 2006 John Gabriel GODDARD IMRI (Université Paris-Dauphine) Marc ISABELLE IMRI (Université Paris-Dauphine) & CEA Part I / How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry? New Survey Evidence from France Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories

2. © Goddard & Isabelle 20062  Outline of the presentation Introduction –Public research and industry: the context Overview –The survey –The sample –The collaborations –Part II Conclusions and perspectives References –PROs’ patents and licenses: the visible part of the iceberg? Results –Part I Part I / How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry? New Survey Evidence from France Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories

3. © Goddard & Isabelle 20063  Public research and industry: the context Shift since 1980s, first experienced in US (Bayh-Dole act) –more collaboration between public research and firms –increase in patent filing by public research organisations –increase in licensing agreements from PROs to firms double purpose =  In France, loi de 1999 –speed the innovation rate in the economy –increase leveraging of resources from their activities by PROs Part I / How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry? New Survey Evidence from France Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories

4. © Goddard & Isabelle 20064  PROs’ patents and licenses: the visible part of the iceberg? Most survey-based studies focus on PROs’ patenting and licensing activities (Thursby et al., 2001; Thursby & Thursby, 2003) Very few address the issue of other channels of K&T transfer to firms (Cohen et al. work with Carnegie-Mellon survey, Levin et al. with Yale survey) –fit with linear model –involve codified knowledge –transfer embodied technologies Possible reasons for this bias = –two-way interactions –involve tacit knowledge –technologies issued from PROs are embryonic –substantive:patented inventions expected to be commercially useful –methodological:extensive record of information / databases associated with patents Part I / How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry? New Survey Evidence from France Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories

5. © Goddard & Isabelle 20065  The survey Focus on IP issues (protection of intangible assets, transmission / diffusion of knowledge) Questionnaire sent to 1800 lab directors 1st semester, 2004 Questionnaire similar to Cohen et al. (1994) Questionnaire Large French government labs (CNRS, CEA, INRA, INSERM, INRIA, Institut Pasteur, Institut Curie) Selected S&T fields: chemistry, life sciences, ICT Targeted on public research labs NB: information about the collaboration portfolio of public labs, NOT about collaborations themselves Part I / How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry? New Survey Evidence from France Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories

6. © Goddard & Isabelle 20066  The sample 146 responses130 labs have collaborations with firms  PROs PROs number=146  region region number=146  size size number=146  S&T fields S&T fields number=146  7,200 personnel wide variation, long tail (4 megalabs over 250 pers.)  fairly representative of PROs’ size (except INSERM)  life sciences dominant, ICT marginal  dominance of IDF, probable bias in favour of PACA (many chemistry labs of CEA there) Part I / How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry? New Survey Evidence from France Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories

7. © Goddard & Isabelle 20067  The collaborations 874 collaborations of every nature(6,9 per lab on average)  localisation of partners localisation of partners number=874  location of collaborative work number=130  number of partners number of partners number=130  duration of collaborations duration of collaborations number=130  weak correlation with size  mostly national, significant regional drive  predominantly long-term  essentially done in public-lab (87%) Part I / How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry? New Survey Evidence from France Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories

8. © Goddard & Isabelle 20068  Probing into the invisible part of the iceberg Part I / How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry? New Survey Evidence from France 14 pre-identified modalities of collaboration Answers on a 4-point scale  Distribution of responses for each modality Distribution of responses for each modality number=130 Interpretation –prevalence of informal / knowledge-targeted / two-way modalities –IP-related K&T transfer through license agreements at a distant 2 nd place

9. © Goddard & Isabelle 20069  Extra resources are effectively leveraged Part I / How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry? New Survey Evidence from France 9 pre-identified benefits of collaboration for the public lab Answers on a 4-point scale  Rate of “Yes” for each benefit Rate of “Yes” for each benefit number=130 Interpretation –perceived benefits closely connected to tangible / intangible inputs obtained –development of technology transfer activities again at a distant 2 nd place (and mobility towards industry) “Significant” + “Decisive”  “Yes”

10. © Goddard & Isabelle 200610  Traditional outcomes outstrip IP-related ones Part I / How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry? New Survey Evidence from France 14 pre-identified outcomes of collaboration Answers on a 4-point scale  Rate of “Yes” for each outcome Rate of “Yes” for each outcome number=130 Interpretation –… related to dominance of research-type modalities –patents & copyrights, licenses of all types 2 to 3 times less frequent than publications or theses… “Frequent” + “Very frequent”  “Yes” –however, embodied technologies (new products & processes + software) as frequent as publications

11. © Goddard & Isabelle 200611  Labs’ activities significantly impacted by collaborations Part I / How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry? New Survey Evidence from France Significant impact on research programmes and themes (rate of “Significant” + “Decisive” = 58%) number=130  Impact on research style answers on a 3-point scale Impact on research style number=130  Impact on research practices 7 pre-identified practicesanswers on a 4-point scale “Significant” + “Decisive”  “Yes” Impact on research practices number=130 Interpretation –stands out against secondary importance of IP- and technology-related modalities / benefits / outcomes? –firms’ preferences shape collaborative labs’ activities –exposure to skewing problem (Florida & Cohen, 1999)

12. © Goddard & Isabelle 200612 4 pre-identified ways of allocating IP Answers on a 4-point scale  Rate of “Yes” for each allocation Rate of “Yes” for each allocation number=130 Interpretation –40% of the labs interact under several ownership rules  flexibility, but in response to what? –joint ownership as frequent as separate ownership… “Frequent” + “Very frequent”  “Yes” –possible correlation with the modalities of collaboration (ex. technical assistance tends to be associated with exclusive ownership of the firm) Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories  Balanced allocation of IP stemming from collaboration

13. © Goddard & Isabelle 200613 10 pre-identified legal mechanisms for results’ appropriation by firms Answers on a 4-point scale  Rate of “Yes” for each mechanism Rate of “Yes” for each mechanism number=130 Interpretation –possible correlation with S&T field (ex. much confidentiality but no patents in brain-related research and nuclear research) –confidentiality and patents dominate: ex ante / ex post complements? “Frequent” + “Very frequent”  “Yes” Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories  Firms gain various legal rights over collaborative results

14. © Goddard & Isabelle 200614 Contractual right to suppress specific information before publication  52% of labs Actual suppression of information in publications  26% of labs Interpretation –2,0 x more actual suppressions in chemistry than in life sciences (significan- -ce to be tested…) –stronger contractual information control than in prior survey (52% vs. 35% for Cohen et al., 1994) Secrecy over all of the results  25% of labs Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories  Tight information control ex ante and ex post –right to suppress information often associated with contractual provisions for publication delay (32% of labs  31% for Cohen et al.) –occasional suppressions while not specified in the contract

15. © Goddard & Isabelle 200615 Contractual provision for publication delay  55% of labs Delay > 6 months in about half cases Interpretation –delays 1,6 x more harmful in life sciences than in chemistry (significance to be tested…) –consistent with prior survey results (55%  53% for Cohen et al.) Delay not harmful or only marginally so for 78% of labs Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories  Publication delays: widespread but not too worrying

16. © Goddard & Isabelle 200616 4 pre-identified levels of barriers to scientific communication Interpretation –limitations harmful to the cumulative process of S&T knowledge building (barriers with public research organisations) –Firms build tight fences around knowledge because it spills over so easily – from possible competitors up to the larger public Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories  Pervasive limitations concerning scientific communication Answers on a 4-point scale  Rate of “Yes” for each level Rate of “Yes” for each level number=130 “Frequent” + “Very frequent”  “Yes” –natural locus of S&T production torn apart in the case of limitations towards colleagues in the same lab (8% of labs)

17. © Goddard & Isabelle 200617 Conflict or discord with a partner about IP issues in 2003  15% of labs Interpretation –probabilistic effect (more partnerships  more conflicts) seems to prevail over capacity effect (more effective management of collaborations by big labs) –many disputes between supposedly “collaborating” partners… but rapidly settled for the most part Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories  IP as a source of (short-lived) conflict between partners Mostly big labs (median = 60 employees vs. 28 for the sample) with many partners (median = 6 vs. 4) Disputes had been resolved in 2004 (i.e. by the time of the survey) for 74% of labs –possibly because of strong incompleteness of R&D contracts

18. © Goddard & Isabelle 200618 Interpretation –patents and secrecy (firms’ preferred mechanisms) at a distant second place… although not marginal –multiple protection is a common strategy (71% of labs) Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories  Public labs protect their intellectual assets through distinctive strategies 6 pre-identified mechanisms of intellectual assets protection by labs Answers on a 4-point scale  Rate of “Yes” for each mechanism Rate of “Yes” for each mechanism number=130 “Frequent” + “Very frequent”  “Yes” –prevalence of contractual protection mechanisms

19. © Goddard & Isabelle 200619 THANK YOU! … but they must be carefully managed to avoid negative consequences on knowledge circulation and diffusion Perform in-depth comparison with Cohen et al., 1994 Identification of cluster effects Regression analysis Public labs are already implementing distinctive strategies to protect their intellectual assets (as compared to firms)  Conclusions and perspectives Technology management in this context is only of limited use: most technologies are embryonic, calling for two-way interactions and tacit knowledge transfer Collaborations with firms allow public labs to leverage additional resources and thereby to increase their scientific output Part I / How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry? New Survey Evidence from France Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories

20. © Goddard & Isabelle 200620 Agrawal A., (2001), “University-to-industry knowledge transfer: literature review and unanswered questions”, International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 285-302. Cohen W.M., Florida R., Goe R., (1994), “University-Industry Research Centers in the United States”, Report to the Ford Foundation, Mimeo, Carnegie Mellon University. Cohen W.M., Florida R., Randazzese L., Walsh J., (1998), “Industry and the Academy: Uneasy Partners in the Cause of Technological Advance”, in Roger Noll (ed.), Challenge to the Research University, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Cohen W.M., Nelson R.R., Walsh J., (2002), “Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D”, Management Science, 48, 1-23. Henderson R., Jaffe A.B., Trajtenberg M., (1998), “Universities as a Source of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis of University Patenting, 1965–1988”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 80, 119-27. Jaffe, A. (1989), “Real Effects of Academic Research”, American Economic Review, 79, 957-70. Mowery D.C., Sampat B.N., (2005), “The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University–Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments?”, Journal of Technology Transfer, 30, 115-27. Thursby J.G., Jensen R., Thursby M.C., (2001), “Objectives, Characteristics and Outcomes of University Licensing: A Survey of Major U.S. Universities”, Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 59-72. Thursby J.G., Thursby M.C., (2003), “Industry/University Licensing: Characteristics, Concerns and Issues from the Perspective of the Buyer”, Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 207-13.  References Part I / How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry? New Survey Evidence from France Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories