1. University Patenting in Europe: On the importance of legal frameworks and local practice Martin Meyer et al. Presented by Dagmara Weckowska SPRU – Science and Technology Policy Research & Dept of Business and Management, School of Business Management and Economics, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RH

2. Acknowledgements Martin Meyer Antje Klitkou Annamaria Inzelt Marina Ranga Paula Moutinho Joaquin Azagra Pirjo Kutinlahti Basak Candemir Devrim Goktepe Bart Van Looy Maurizio Sobrero Loet Leydesdorff Izabela Kijenska Lena Tsipouri Elena Castro Martínez Puay Tang Jordi Molas-Gallart Uelle Must Azele Mathieu Africa Villanueva Felez Francesco Lissoni Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10 ‐ 11 May 2012

3. Context More and more European countries have adopted Bayh-Dole type legislation to encourage commercial uptake of university research -through a change of IP ownership that favours universities and often abolishes faculty privileges Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10 ‐ 11 May 2012

4. University Patenting Activity at Country Level Source: Van Looy et al. (2007)

5. Selected Universities – patent output Source: Leydesdorff & Meyer Scientometrics, forthcoming. Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10 ‐ 11 May 2012

6. Selected UK Universities – number of patent applications Source: HEBCI surveys Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10 ‐ 11 May 2012

7. Observations raise questions: Perhaps, differences can be explained by local practice and cultural context Need to compare (1) patenting activity by university faculty in countries with different frameworks (2) explore differences in approaches towards IP between similar, research-intensive universities in a number of EU member states Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10 ‐ 11 May 2012

8. Legal Frameworks Bay Dole type arrangements/no faculty exception : Professor’s privilege -Sweden -Finland (until 2005) Not explicitly regulated: Czech Rep Poland Slovakia Portugal Turkey Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10 ‐ 11 May 2012 Austria Belgium Denmark (since 2001) Finland France Germany (since 2001) Greece Hungary Ireland Latvia Norway (since 2001) Slovenia Spain UK*

9. Country Cases Two universities in the UK Two universities in Spain Plans for two universities in Germany Two universities in Poland – work in progress Plans for two universities in Sweden Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10 ‐ 11 May 2012

10. United Kingdom Two established in the 1960’s, members of ‘1994 Group’ Case 1: University of Sussex Case 2: University of Surrey # invention disclosures /FTE # new applications /FTE # new grants /FTE # active patent portfolio /FTE IP licensing income /FTE IP licensing income / # active patent portfolio Surrey/Sussex in 2005/6 3.5 60.522.214.25 Surrey/Sussex in 2009/10 5.0524.410.740.3748.34131.07 Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10 ‐ 11 May 2012

11. IP framework University of SurreyUniversity of Sussex ▫ University IP code ▫ Well established organisational structures: TTO since 1970s Science Park and incubator facility since 1983 SETSquared pre-incubator since 2002 ▫ University IP code reviewed in 2010 – changes with regard to IP ownership in collaborative/contract research and changes in royalty sharing scheme) ▫ Changes in organisational structure: Sussex IP company (2002- 2008), Research and Enterprise Services (from 2008), close collaboration with the university incubator - ‘Sussex Innovation Centre’ (est. 1996)

12. Approach to generating and handling disclosures University of SurreyUniversity of Sussex Academics disclose inventions to RES royalty sharing scheme: Inventors: 70% - 35% University: 30% - 65% ---------------------------------------- RES manages IP protection Structured approach to valorisation of IP Strategic partnership with IP Group since 2006. Academics disclose inventions to RES and also RES actively seeks commercialisable research outputs royalty sharing scheme revised in 2010 Inventors: 80% or 40% Their department: 10% or 40% University: 10% or 20 --------------------------------------------- RES manages IP protection a stage-gate process for valorisation of IP since 2010 Collaboration with Sussex Innovation Centre, which helps with IP marketing, business planning and fundraising internal seed fund since 2009 Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10 ‐ 11 May 2012

13. Entrepreneurial orientation of university University of SurreyUniversity of Sussex Surrey can be defined as an entrepreneurial university. there is a strengthened steering core and well-established developmental periphery a diversified funding base (2009/10: 43% UK public funds, 4% UK charities, 15% UK businesses 7% non-UK businesses 31% from other foreign sources. Sussex aspires to transform into an entrepreneurial university. Recently strengthened steering core and restructured developmental periphery BUT not diversified funding base (2009/10: 63% UK public funds, 15% UK charities, 5% UK businesses, 0.15% non-UK business 16% from non-UK sources Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10 ‐ 11 May 2012

14. Poland Two polytechnic universities: -Case study 1: Warsaw University of Technology -Case study 2: Wroclaw University of Technology National patent applications FTE Acad. Staff ##/FTE Warsaw UT 2001-051310.0941401 Wroclaw UT 2001-051180.1001177 WrUT/WUT 1.07 Wroclaw UT 2005-106020.310 1943 Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10 ‐ 11 May 2012

15. IP framework Warsaw University of Tech.Wroclaw University of Tech. ▫ WUT is developing IP policy and regulations. ▫ Technology Transfer Centre promotes and manages IPR since 1997, transformed into CTTED in 2010 ▫ Creation of a science park is part of the strategic plan for 2011 and 2020 ▫ WrUT has policies in place for IP management since 1998 ▫ A number of centres supporting commercialisation of academic research: ▫ Wrocław Centre for Technology Transfer (since 1996), ▫ the Office of Intellectual Property and Patent Information (since 2008), ▫ the Academic Incubator of Entrepreneurship (since 2006), ▫ the Student Career Office Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10 ‐ 11 May 2012

16. Approach to generating and handling disclosures Warsaw University of Tech.Wroclaw University of Tech. Reactive approach has dominated so far. A network of faculty-based enterprise managers is currently being developed. New policy will oblige academics to disclose Royalty sharing scheme So far on a case by case basis Plan: 50% for inventors 25% for the faculty 25% for the central university Proactive approach, e.g. occasional competitive bids encouraging disclosures Academics obliged to disclose by the University’s policy Disclosures are one of the key performance indicators in the periodic reviews of the academic staff performance Royalty sharing scheme 60% for inventors 20% for the faculty 20% for the central university Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10 ‐ 11 May 2012

17. Entrepreneurial orientation of university Warsaw University of Tech.Wroclaw University of Tech. WUT is transforming into an entrepreneurial university. strengthening steering core: introduction of IP policy and inclusion of knowledge transfer in strategy for 2010- 2020 expanding developmental periphery: the professional outreach office was established The funding base is not diversified: about 75% from public funds. The heartland remains suspicious of entrepreneurial activities. An entrepreneurial culture has not developed yet. WrUT is an entrepreneurial university. There is a strengthen steering core - university’s mission and strategy, policies developmental periphery – four organisational units for support of commercialisation activities. Diversified funding base for research activities: about 50% from public sources. There is entrepreneurial culture in many academic departments developed through years of close collaboration with industry. Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10 ‐ 11 May 2012

18. Spain Case Study 1: Universidad de Valladolid Case Study 2: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela Long tradition Note: Universities may have less autonomy here # new domestic applications /FTE # new PCT applications /FTE # active patent portfolio /FTE IP licensing income /FTE IP income / # active patent portfolio USC/UVA in 2005/6 2.1310.33 2.19.904.65 USC/UVA in 2010 2.12.62.41.230.5 Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10 ‐ 11 May 2012

19. IP framework Universidad de Valladolid Uni. de Santiago de Compostela UVA policy and regulations (1997) establish the procedure and benefits distribution. OTRI promotes and manages IPR (only licensing) University Science Park and an incubator opened in 2007 USC policy and regulations (1989) establish the procedure and benefits distribution. OTRI promotes and manages IPR (licensing, and spin-out formation, NO support for student start-ups) incubator UNINOVA was created in 1999 a science park opened with its own incubator in 2008 In 2009 Campusvida started. Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10 ‐ 11 May 2012

20. Approach to generating and handling disclosures Universidad de Valladolid Uni. de Santiago de Compostela The academics disclose inventions to Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research by means of a technical report. OTRI manages IP protection OTRI manages the IP valorisation process and negotiations of license contracts. OTRI has launched active IP policy in 2007 and by 2010 developed an integral system to manage IPR Royalty sharing scheme Inventors: 60% Their department: 10-17% University: 30-33% The academic disclose inventions to the OTRI OTRI manages IP protection OTRI manages the IP valorisation process and negotiations of license contracts. OTRI coordinates IP valorisation during spin off creation Royalty sharing scheme Inventors: 60% Their department: 20% University: 20% Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10 ‐ 11 May 2012

21. Approach to generating disclosures Universidad de Valladolid Uni. de Santiago de Compostela UVA has remained a traditional university. ▫ The core is suspicious of entrepreneurial activities due to the previous loss of academic staff. ▫ An entrepreneurial culture has not developed. IPR protection and license policy started in 2007 with good results. The USC can be defined as a entrepreneurial university ▫ diversified funding base, ▫ active (and creative) policy to promote collaboration with enterprises, IPR, spin offs and start ups ▫ change the academic staff culture. Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10 ‐ 11 May 2012

22. Some conclusions Thriving technology transfer activities in environments where a Bayh-Dole type legislative framework was not in place. This could suggest that the impact of regulatory frameworks may have a symbolic or signalling function. Case studies have pointed to within country differences in terms of patenting between university pairs Differences in patenting between pairs decrease/increase overtime and these patterns seem to be related to changes in local practice or the ‘cultural context’: This suggest the importance of local practice or the ‘cultural context’ Dagmara Weckowska Leuven, 10 ‐ 11 May 2012