Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

University patenting: a comparison of 300 leading universities worldwide

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite a worldwide increase in university patenting, empirical studies have largely focused on analyzing university patenting in individual countries and regions. We provide analyses from an international perspective, examining patents at the top 300 universities worldwide. By providing a patent ranking system and an analysis of the determinants of university patenting, we enable an international comparison not only between different countries but also between universities within countries. A ranking of the top-patenting universities shows a huge predominance of US universities: 18 of the top 25 universities are located in the US, with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology being ranked first. Our results show that the propensity to apply for patents is very high among US and Asian universities, while European universities lag behind. In addition to the home country, further determinants of university patenting are the quantity of the universities’ publications and a technological focus in areas such as chemistry and mechanical engineering. However, the size of a university and the quality of its publications are not found to be significant determinants.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The complete rankings are available upon request.

References

  • Acosta, M., Coronado, D., León, M. D., & Martínez, M. Á. (2009). Production of university technological knowledge in European regions: Evidence from patent data. Regional Studies, 43, 1167–1181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A. K., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48, 44–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldini, N. (2009). Implementing Bayh–Dole-like laws: Faculty problems and their impact on university patenting activity. Research Policy, 38, 1217–1224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2006). Institutional changes and the commercialization of academic knowledge: A study of Italian universities’ patenting activities between 1965 and 2002. Research Policy, 35, 518–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Montobbio, F. (2005). From publishing to patenting: Do productive scientists turn into academi inventors? Revue d’économie industrielle, 110, 75–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Montobbio, F. (2008). University patenting and scientific productivity: A quantitative study of Italian academic inventors. European Management Review, 5, 91–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulut, H., & Moschini, G. (2009). US universities’ net returns from patenting and licensing: A quantile regression analysis. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 18, 123–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, B., & Fridh, A.-C. (2002). Technology transfer in United States universities. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12, 199–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W., Nelson, R., & Walsh, J. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conti, A., & Gaule, P. (2011). Is the US outperforming Europe in university technology licensing? A new perspective on the European Paradox. Research Policy, 40, 123–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coupé, T. (2003). Science is golden: Academic R&D and university patents. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 31–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crespi, G. A., D’Este, P., Fontana, R., & Geuna, A. (2011). The impact of academic patenting on university research and its transfer. Research Policy, 40, 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crespi, G.A., Geuna, A., & Verspagen, B. (2006). University IPRs and knowledge transfer. Is the IPR ownership model more efficient? SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series, No. 154, University of Sussex.

  • Criscuolo, P. (2006). The “home advantage” effect and patent families: A comparison of OECD triadic patents, the USPTO and the EPO. Scientometrics, 66, 23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Criscuolo, P., & Verspagen, B. (2008). Does it matter where patent citations come from? Inventor vs. examiner citations in European patents. Research Policy, 37, 1892–1908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32, 209–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (1994). Knowledge as property: The Massachusetts Institute of technology and the debate over academic patent policy. Minerva, 32, 383–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fabrizio, K. R., & Di Minin, A. (2008). Commercializing the laboratory: Faculty patenting and the open science environment. Research Policy, 37, 914–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisch, C., Block, J., Sandner, P. (2014). Chinese university patents: Quantity, quality, and the role of subsidy programs. SSRN Working Paper.

  • Foltz, J., Barham, B., & Kim, K. (2000). Universities and agricultural biotechnology patent production. Agribusiness, 16, 82–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch, M., & Slavtchev, V. (2007). Universities and innovation in space. Industry and Innovation, 14, 201–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2002). The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy, 31, 899–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. J. J. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy, 35, 790–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A., & Rossi, F. (2011). Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting. Research Policy, 40, 1068–1076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godinho, M. M., & Ferreira, V. (2012). Analyzing the evidence of an IPR take-off in China and India. Research Policy, 41, 499–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Research Policy, 32, 1343–1363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 119–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt-Dundas, N. (2012). Research intensity and knowledge transfer activity in UK universities. Research Policy, 41, 262–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinze, S., Reiß, T., & Schmoch, U. (1997). Statistical analysis on the distance between fields of technology. Report for European Commission TSER Project.

  • Hu, M.-C., & Mathews, J. A. (2005). National innovative capacity in East Asia. Research Policy, 34, 1322–1349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, M.-C., & Mathews, J. A. (2008). China’s national innovative capacity. Research Policy, 37, 1465–1479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lach, S., & Schankerman, M. (2008). Incentives and invention in universities. The Rand Journal of Economics, 39, 403–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry, R., Amara, N., & Ouimet, M. (2006). Determinants of knowledge transfer: evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32, 561–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2010). The decline of university patenting and the end of the Bayh-Dole effect. Scientometrics, 83, 355–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, X. (2012). Behind the recent surge of Chinese patenting: An institutional view. Research Policy, 41, 236–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liegsalz, J., & Wagner, S. (2013). Patent examination at the State Intellectual Property Office in China. Research Policy, 42, 552–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lissoni, F., Llerena, P., McKelvey, M., & Sanditov, B. (2008). Academic patenting in Europe: new evidence from the KEINS database. Research Evaluation, 17, 87–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luan, C., Zhou, C., & Liu, A. (2010). Patent strategy in Chinese universities: A comparative perspective. Scientometrics, 84, 53–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2006). Are patenting scientists the better scholars? Research Policy, 35, 1646–1662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980. Research Policy, 30, 99–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2005a). The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university-industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments? Journal of Technology Transfer, 30, 115–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2005b). Universities in national innovation systems. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 209–239). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., & Ziedonis, A. (2002). Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole act in the United States. Research Policy, 31, 399–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation. (2013). Higher education research and development: Fiscal year 2011. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13325/pdf/nsf13325.pdf. Accessed April 23, 2014.

  • O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy, 34, 994–1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2003). The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: Assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Research Policy, 32, 1695–1711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, W. G. (2008). International patent protection: 1960–2005. Research Policy, 37, 761–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., King, Z., & Pavelin, S. (2011). Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry. Research Policy, 40, 539–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, N., & Nelson, R. (1994). American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy, 23, 323–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampat, B. N., Mowery, D. C., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2003). Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh-Dole act: A re-examination. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 1371–1390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sapsalis, E., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., & Navon, R. (2006). Academic versus industry patenting: An in-depth analysis of what determines patent value. Research Policy, 35, 1631–1645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2004). Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh-Dole Act on university patenting in the United States. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 127–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University. (2014). Academic ranking of world universities. http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2013.html. Accessed April 23, 2014.

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003a). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14, 111–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. N. (2003b). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, P. E., Gurmu, S., Sumell, A. J., & Black, G. (2007). Who’s patenting in the university? Evidence from the survey of doctorate recipients. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16, 71–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, Y. (2003). Determinants of foreign patents in China. World Patent Information, 25, 27–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major US universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 59–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • University of California (2012). Technology Transfer Annual Report 2011. http://ucop.edu/innovation-alliances-services/_files/ott/genresources/documents/IASRptFY11.pdf. Accessed April 23, 2014.

  • Van Looy, B., Landoni, P., Callaert, J., van Pottelsberghe, B., Sapsalis, E., & Debackere, K. (2011). Entrepreneurial effectiveness of European universities: An empirical assessment of antecedents and trade-offs. Research Policy, 40, 553–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Zeebroeck, N., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., & Guellec, D. (2008). Patents and academic research: A state of the art. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 9, 246–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, P. K., & Singh, A. (2010). University patenting activities and their link to the quantity and quality of scientific publications. Scientometrics, 83, 271–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, W., & Zhou, Y. (2012). The third mission stalled? Universities in China’s technological progress. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37, 812–827.

  • Zucker, L. G., & Darby, M. R. (1996). Star scientists and institutional transformation: patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 93, 12709–12716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprises. The American Economic Review, 88, 290–306.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Management, Trier University, Universitaetsring 15, 54296, Trier, Germany

    Christian O. Fisch & Joern H. Block

  2. TUM School of Management, Technische Universität München, Leopoldstr. 139, 80804, München, Germany

    Tobias M. Hassel & Philipp G. Sandner

  3. Erasmus Institute of Management (ERIM), Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands

    Joern H. Block

Authors
  1. Christian O. Fisch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tobias M. Hassel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Philipp G. Sandner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joern H. Block
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian O. Fisch.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 6.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fisch, C.O., Hassel, T.M., Sandner, P.G. et al. University patenting: a comparison of 300 leading universities worldwide. J Technol Transf 40, 318–345 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9355-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9355-x

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation