Research Teams and Partnerships Trends in the Chemical Sciences, Report of a Workshop (1999) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
1 The Evolving Structure of University-Industry Collaboration in the United States: Three Cases
1 The Evolving Structure of University-Industry Collaboration in the United States: Three Cases
Pages 7-20
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 7... ...
and its collaboration with industry. The second case discusses management of patenting and licensing by universities in the postwar period and the development of the Research Corporation, a nonprofit entity created to manage the licensing activities of U.S.
|
From page 8... ...
The development of chemical engineering research, teaching, and practice was influenced by the symbiotic relationship between Standard Oil of New Jersey and MIT faculty who worked to codify, advance, and disseminate the key tenets of the emergent discipline. Much of the collaboration during this period involved joint development of these new practices in both the academic and the industrial laboratories combined with relatively widespread dissemination, particularly through teaching and textbooks.
|
From page 9... ...
For the first several decades of its existence, the Research Corporation focused on expanding and marketing its patent portfolio in antipollution technology. As a result, the Research Corporation developed a reputation and expertise in patent management and licensing, accumulating knowledge of patent application procedures, management of patent litigation, and management of patent licensing.
|
From page 10... ...
The Research Corporation sought cost savings and efficiencies through its centralized management of a substantial and diverse patent portfolio. However, these cost savings proved to be elusive; centralized management for such a large, diverse patent portfolio was not very cost effective.
|
From page 11... ...
This conflict between the goal of maximizing income and a broader set of institutional goals of the universities remains significant in the operation of a number of contemporary technology transfer and patent licensing offices in the United States. The overall costs of the Research Corporation and the cost per patent rose substantially from 1960 to 1982 (see Figure 1.2~.
|
From page 12... ...
Along with the growth of costs and the associated emergence of operating income deficits, the expiration of these "home-run" patents in the mid-1970s intensified financial pressures on the Research Corporation. In summary, the history of the Research Corporation suggests that centralized management of patenting for multiple institutions is difficult and is not always as cost efficient as frequently suggested.
|
From page 13... ...
These "top five" inventions at each university also are derived largely from biomedical technologies. At UC, because of the early importance of agricultural inventions, biomedical inventions account for only 34 percent of its licensing income from the five most lucrative inventions in 1970.
|
From page 14... ...
At Columbia, the biomedical inventions' share of the income from the top five inventions grew from 81 percent in FY 1985 to 91 percent in FY 1995. Just as was true of the Research Corporation's licensing income, these three research university systems derive the majority of their licensing income from biomedical inventions.
|
From page 15... ...
15 to o C)
|
From page 16... ...
The data on the growing number of university licensing offices in the United States indicate substantial entry into patenting and licensing by universities as a result of Bayh-Dole. But for many of the universities that have entered the pursuit of licensing, the lack of home runs and a relatively modest flow of biomedical inventions in particular mean that their licensing activities are unprofitable.
|
From page 17... ...
They include publication, training of students, and faculty consulting, in addition to these more conventionally defined channels of technology transfer. One of the remaining challenges and potential risks associated with the Bayh-Dole Act is the danger that an excessive focus on intellectual property and licensing and patenting as the primary channel for technology transfer will have a chilling effect on other channels.
|
From page 18... ...
This broader array of objectives is in many cases difficult to measure, difficult to quantify, operates over a longer time horizon and, therefore, it's much more difficult to get it into the managerial consciousness of the people in the technology licensing office. But it's a risk, and you are exactly right.
|
From page 19... ...
. as has been suggested several times, the danger IS that umverslty technology licensing managers or university presidents think that the whole world is as profitable as biotechnology and that the research and the licensing goals do not come into conflict.
|
From page 20... ...
20 RESEARCH TEAMS AND PARTNERSHIPS: TRENDS IN THE CHEMICAL SCIENCES David Mowery: No. I wish I did.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.