The transfer of technology from the organizational viewpoint

Climate Change, Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Rights

The objective of this article is to present a successful program that built a National Innovation Network based in the University Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs), incubators and science parks.The University Technology Enterprise Network (UTEN), which was launched in March 2007, includes 15 Portuguese Universities and select international partners in a 5-Year program funded by the Portuguese government. The main objective has been to accelerate the development of a sustainable, globally competitive, professional technology transfer and commercialization network within Portugal to increase Portugal’s international competitiveness in university–based science, and technology transfer and commercialization. We argue that all initiatives taken place in the project have gotten UTEN network presently run in the Open Innovation paradigm fostered mostly by the TTOs and their own networks and officers. Science and technology based entrepreneurship was increasingly seen as a key element of Portugal’s ability to grow and prosper (UTEN, 2012). Research universities had worked to foster a range of technology transfer and commercialization activities and offices, together with industrial liaison programs, mostly devoted to fostering entrepreneurial environments, launching technology based start-ups, and bringing ideas from the laboratory to the market. UTEN was created to synergize this growth and stimulate new competencies in international technology transfer and commercialization to facilitate industry access to leading markets worldwide. In other words, UTEN is the living example of an Innovation network - an Open Innovation Network launched to contribute to build the necessary relationships between all actors, giving them the necessary knowledge to play their roles. This working paper shows the actions taken to construct UTEN and improve the Portuguese Innovation Ecosystem. These actions follows the patterns observed in other studies – essentially those ones from Resende et al, 2013; McAdam et al., 2012; Philpott et al., 2011; Todorovic et al., 2011; Rogers, 2002; Rogers et al., 2001; Rogers et al., 2000 and Gibson and Rogers, 1994.We have collected data that shows the success of the program based on the results of the first five years of the project.

The importance of technology transfer (TT) from Universities to industry cannot be overstated. Such transfer does not only stimulate development, but is also a way of bringing research into practical use. However, the issue of how Universities and industry partner for enhancement of TT activities is not well articulated. This study attempts to answer the following questions: How does policy on intellectual property rights affect TT from Universities? How does government funding affect TT from Universities? This research highlights the mechanisms adopted by Ugandan Universities for TT and the avenues for protecting intellectual property rights. It is hoped that the findings of this study will provide useful lessons to policy makers who are concerned with evaluating the effectiveness of TT from Universities. The Endogenous Growth Model was used to assess this TT. The research project was a qualitative descriptive single case study using Makerere University as a case institution. The Nvivo 9 data analysis technique was employed to organize and analyse the data. Findings indicate that inadequate funding; problems with ownership of intellectual property, lack of ethics by faculty and researchers, low motivation of staff and conflict of interest are the major impediments to University-industry TT in Uganda. The study recommends increased funding for University-industry TT activities and formalization of intellectual property rights in higher education institutions. Keywords : University, Industry, Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property Rights, Endogenous Growth Model, Technology Diffusion. DOI: 10.7176/JEP/11-17-06 Publication date: June 30th 2020

Contents: Volume I Acknowledgements Introduction Rohan Kariyawasam PART I WTO, TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND ANTITRUST 1. Wonki Min (2000), 'Telecommunications Regulations: Institutional Structures and Responsibilities' 2. Yoshiko Kurisaki (1995), 'The Changing Role of Telecommunications in the Economy: Globalisation and Its Impact on National Telecommunications Policy' 3. Rohan Kariyawasam (2007), 'International Telecommunications' 4. Peter L. Smith and Bjoern Wellenius (1999), 'Mitigating Regulatory Risk in Telecommunications' 5. Marco C.E.J. Bronckers and Pierre Larouche (1997), 'Telecommunication Services and the World Trade Organization' 6. Lee Tuthill (1996), 'Users' Rights? The Multilateral Rules on Access to Telecommunications' 7. Lee Tuthill (1997), 'The GATS and New Rules for Regulators' 8. Mark Naftel and Lawrence J. Spiwak (2000), 'The WTO and the Reference Paper: An Ostensible Blueprint for Entry' 9. Markus Fredebeul-Krein and Andreas Freytag (1997), 'Telecommunications and WTO Discipline: An Assessment of the WTO Agreement on Telecommunication Services' 10. Timothy Denton (2002), 'Protocol Interfaces Are the New Bottlenecks: What the Internet Means for Telecom Regulation' 11. Rohan Kariyawasam (2005), 'Defining Dominance for Bits and Bytes: A New Layering Theory for Interpreting Significant Market Power?' 12. Sonali Singh (2006), 'The Telmex Dispute at the WTO: Competition Makes a Backdoor Entry' 13. Eleanor M. Fox (2006), 'The WTO's First Antitrust Case - Mexican Telecom: A Sleeping Victory for Trade and Competition' PART II THE CLASSIFICATION OF ELECTRONIC INTANGIBLES IN THE WTO 14. Peter Hill (1999), 'Tangibles, Intangibles and Services: A New Taxonomy for the Classification of Output' 15. Rohan Kariyawasam (2007), 'The Classification of Electronic Intangibles in the WTO' 16. Claude E. Barfield (2003), 'Electronic Commerce and the Gats Negotiations' 17. Harald Sander (2003), 'Electronic Commerce and Gats Negotiation (Some Comments on a Paper by Claude E. Barfield)' 18. Sacha Wunsch-Vincent (2006), 'The Internet, Cross-Border Trade in Services, and the GATS: Lessons from US-Gambling' 19. Federico Ortino (2006), 'Treaty Interpretation and the WTO Appellate Body Report in US - Gambling: A Critique' 20. Maria Veronica Perez Asinari (2006), 'Internet Gambling and Betting Services: When the GATS' Rules Are Not Applied Due to the Public Morals/Public Order Exception. What Lessons Can Be Learnt?' Name Index Volume II: Acknowledgements Introduction Rohan Kariyawasam PART I WTO AND ELECTRONIC COMMERCE 1. Heinz Hauser and Sacha Wunsch-Vincent (2000/2001), 'A Call for the WTO E-Commerce Initiative' 2. Daniel Piazolo (2001), 'Multilateral and European Responses to E-Commerce' 3. Sacha Wunsch-Vincent (2003), 'The Digital Trade Agenda of the U.S.: Parallel Tracks of Bilateral, Regional and Multinational Liberalization' 4. Michael Hart and Ramesh Chaitoo (1999), 'Electronic Commerce and International Trade Rules' 5. Olivier Cattaneo and Julia Nielson (2002), 'Regulation of Services Traded Electronically' 6. Rosemary Morris (2000), 'Electronic Commerce: A Cluster Approach to the Negotiation of Input Services' PART II INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, BILATERALISM AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 7. Keith E. Maskus (1998), 'The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in Encouraging Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Transfer' 8. Olivier Cattaneo (2003), 'Intellectual Property Rights in the New Economy: Technological Changes and the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights' 9. Carlos M. Correa (2000), 'Implications of Intellectual Property Rights for the Access to and Use of Information Technologies in Developing Countries' 10. Peter Drahos (2001), 'Bilateralism in Intellectual Property' PART III DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, THE NEW ECONOMY AND THE WTO 11. Sanjeev Dewan, Dale Ganley and Kenneth L. Kraemer (2005), 'Across the Digital Divide: A Cross-Country, Multi-Technology Analysis of the Determinants of IT Penetration' 12. Lars T. Soeftestad and Maung K. Sein (2003), 'ICT and Devolopment: East is East and West is West and the Twain may yet Meet. On the Process of Implementing an ICT-Strategy in the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD)' 13. Rohan Kariyawasam (2007), 'Developing Countries and Telecommunications' 14. Peter F. Cowhey and Mikhail M. Kilmenko (2001), 'Implementing Telecommunications Liberalization in Developing Countries after the WTO Agreement on Basic Telecommunications Services' 15. Arvind Panagariya (2000), 'E-Commerce, WTO and Developing Countries' 16. Catherine L. Mann (2000), 'Electronic Commerce in Developing Countries: Issues for Domestic Policy and WTO Negotiations' 17. David Vivas Eugui (2001), 'Issues on the Relationship Between E-Commerce and Intellectual Property Rights in the WTO: Implications for Developing Countries' Name Index

Despite the growing interest in university-to-industry technology transfer, there are very few studies on the governance of universities’ technology transfer offices (TTOs). The few existing ones tend to focus on US universities and generally tackle one dimension of the governance. The present paper aims at contributing to this literature in two ways. First, it takes into account the diversity of organizational models with a theoretical perspective: the paper presents a discussion on which combinations of four structural dimensions should yield viable configurations. Four main types of TTOs are identified: (1) classical TTO; (2) autonomous TTO; (3) discipline-integrated Technology Transfer Alliance; and (4) discipline-specialized Technology Transfer Alliance. Second, the paper relies on 16 case studies of universities located in six European countries in order to address the pros and cons of the four types of TTOs. The results provide both a conceptual understanding and an empirical overview of how universities organize their technology transfer and intellectual property management.

PurposeThis study investigates the role of “soft” factors of total quality management – in terms of empowerment and engagement of employees – in facilitating or hindering organizational performance of the university technology transfer offices.Design/methodology/approachThe authors developed an Ordinary Least Squares (OLS), multiple regression model to test if empowerment and engagement affect organizational performance of the university technology transfer offices.FindingsThe authors found that “soft” factors of total quality management – in terms of empowerment and engagement – facilitate the improvement of organizational performance in university technology transfer offices.Practical implicationsThe authors’ analysis shows that soft total quality management practices create the conditions for improving organizational performance. This study provides practical implications by showing that, in the evaluation of the technology transfer office, not only the “hard” variables (e.g. number of employees and employee experience) but also the “soft” one (e.g. empowerment and engagement) matter. Therefore, university technology transfer managers or university technology transfer delegates should take actions to promote not only empowering employees but also create a climate conducive to employees' engagement in the university technology transfer offices.Originality/valueWith regards to the differences in organizational performances of university technology transfer offices, several studies have focused their attention on technology transfer professionals in technology transfer offices, but only a few of them have examined the “soft side” of total quality management. Thus, this study examines the organizational goals of technology transfer offices through “soft” factors of total quality management in terms of empowerment and engagement employees.

This piece of research is focused on providing a review of the software solutions that exist when it comes to mechanisms that govern the management of intellectual property. It takes a deeper look at requirements within the university transfer office domain. Universities are a genuine source of knowledge. They have been identified not just as knowledge hubs but also as the spaces where innovations are born. These innovations then make their way into the market through the different industries they serve, becoming products that gain the attention of actual consumers. Given the magnitude of the innovations being developed in different universities around the world, it is imperative that mechanisms for the safety of this knowledge also be put into place. The world has evolved into a knowledge economy, where knowledge is an asset and something that can create profitability. This means that not protecting the knowledge that is being created can only lead to a loss in the future. Managing intellectual property, therefore, is not only a matter of procedure but one of great importance. Solutions that are easily accessible, cost-effective, and time-effective are essential. Thus, the goal of this article is to provide an overview of existing software (SW) solutions suitable for managing technology and knowledge transfer at universities based on requirements from the technology transfer office at university and specified using the model of the whole process from inventor until patent office. University Technology Transfer (TT) is a bit different in comparison to TT at companies. This gap is shown in the article using modelling of process, states, and class diagrams of a university Technology Transfer Office (TTO). Based on process definition and TTO responsibilities, a review of available SW solutions is done for 10 selected examples, as well as a related literature analysis. Findings and implications are summarized at the end of article in the context of specific needs of a university TTO, while major implications are shown as a problem of priority definition of every university TTO, namely, in the sense of value of SW solutions for intellectual property (IP) management, reporting possibilities, and representing IP and know-how.

With respect to sustainable development, Intellectual Property can represent either a critical incentive or a hindrance to innovation and creativity. However, the purpose of this report is to go beyond the positions of principle and to underline the current and prospective Intellectual Property protection and uses that would create positive impact to achieve sustainability. The role of Intellectual Property in sustainable development shall therefore be global: tackling challenges in relation to biodiversity, traditional knowledge, climate change, transfer of clean technologies, agrobiotechnology and food security shall be the focus. This contribution aims at discussing the role of Intellectual Property regulations and/or other measures taken or proposed in Switzerland to encourage sustainable enterprises and innovations. We will provide an overview of the different Intellectual Property rights protected under Swiss law and their respective/current role in sustainability (Sect. 20.2) as well as of the measures and initiatives leading to cooperation, transfer of technology or knowledge offered in Switzerland (Sect. 20.3). Overall, if there is still room for improvement, Switzerland and the Swiss Intellectual Property Office have undertaken effective steps to implement and contribute to the realisation of the sustainable development goals, especially by encouraging the dissemination of innovation and knowledge.

The study examines the one of the dramatic collisions of international technology transfer, such as the tension between aims of technology transfer, on the one hand, and protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs), on the other hand. Authors review comprehensively the dual role of intellectual property (IP) in the international technology transfer and strive to address some of issues concerning the essence of global complex policy in area of technology transfer and of the IPR protection based on international legal instruments. The present study also deals with analysis of directions of the politics of international law in appropriate area. Authors have stressed that is important to understand that efforts of the world society to establish the international regime of technology transfer on fair and equitable terms during last 50 years presume that this regime is in conjunction with issues on the protection of IPRs. Finally, the intersecting of mission of internationally transferred technologies and aims of the IPRs protection demands a new steps of international cooperation designed to reconcile the interests of various groups of countries, interests of right holders and users of technologies. The basis of possible reconciliation is numerous provisions of international legal instruments providing for the balanced relation between perspectives of technological progress of society and interest of holders of exclusive rights. DOI: 10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n5s1p177

The objective of this paper is to study the use of intellectual property (IP) rights by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The paper draws on different surveys and studies in selected countries, with an emphasis on Canadian SMEs, to compare the use and exploitation of IP by company size. The paper finds that despite the potential benefits of acquiring formal IP rights for SMEs, they use IP rights to a lesser degree than large companies due to several factors, mainly the low rate of innovation compared to large companies and the cost and complexity of the IP system. The paper also presents a framework to analyze whether there is a role for government to play in this area, and how the government could address this under-utilization of IP rights by SMEs.

Technology transfer offices (TTOs) play an increasingly important role in universities, supporting researchers in translating science knowledge into commercially and socially valuable outcomes. However, the literature is limited regarding how TTOs support the technology transfer process. This study contributes deeper insight into the role of TTOs in facilitating knowledge transfer outcomes. A case study of life science commercialization in Australasian universities drew on depth interviews with senior TTO managers and industry experts, on longitudinal participant observation within a life science intermediary business to inform about supply side elements, and on secondary data. The findings emphasise the effects of wider institutional change on quintuple helix (5H) stakeholders, i.e., the environment, society, government, universities, and industry. Financialization and competition places growing demands on universities for commercializable intellectual property (IP) production. In response, TTOs have built competencies in translational engagement (trust and reputation building and boundary spanning) and value co-creation (service quality management and de-risking). Those competencies translate to a five-stage process of technology transfer facilitation: (1) Identifying, (2) assessing, (3) protecting, (4) promoting and (5) profiting. In the complex context of life science innovation, innovation networks benefit from investment in university outreach, stakeholder relationship building, tax credits, and fund matching with transnational corporations. To ensure optimal social and commercial outcomes independent oversight of the process should be maintained, by representatives from all 5H stakeholders.

Background: A large number of highly impactful technologies originated from academic research, and the transfer of inventions from academic institutions to private industry is a major driver of economic growth, and a catalyst for further discovery. However, there are significant inefficiencies in academic technology transfer. In this work, we conducted a data-driven assessment of translational activity across United States (U.S.) institutions to better understand how effective universities are in facilitating the transfer of new technologies into the marketplace. From this analysis, we provide recommendations to guide technology transfer policy making at both the university and national level. Methods: Using data from the Association of University Technology Managers U.S. Licensing Activity Survey, we defined a commercialization pipeline that reflects the typical path intellectual property takes; from initial research funding to startup formation and gross income. We use this pipeline to quantify the performance of academic institutions at each step of the process, as well as overall, and identify the top performing institutions via mean reciprocal rank. The corresponding distributions were visualized and disparities quantified using the Gini coefficient. Results: We found significant discrepancies in commercialization activity between institutions; a small number of institutions contribute to the vast majority of total commercialization activity. By examining select top performing institutions, we suggest improvements universities and technology transfer offices could implement to emulate the environment at these high-performing institutions. Conclusion: Significant disparities in technology transfer performance exist in which a select set of institutions produce a majority share of the total technology transfer activity. This disparity points to missed commercialization opportunities, and thus, further investigation into the distribution of technology transfer effectiveness across institutions and studies of policy changes that would improve the effectiveness of the commercialization pipeline is warranted.

Background: A large number of highly impactful technologies originated from academic research, and the transfer of inventions from academic institutions to private industry is a major driver of economic growth, and a catalyst for further discovery. However, there are significant inefficiencies in academic technology transfer. In this work, we conducted a data-driven assessment of translational activity across United States (U.S.) institutions to better understand how effective universities are in facilitating the transfer of new technologies into the marketplace. From this analysis, we provide recommendations to guide technology transfer policy making at both the university and national level. Methods: Using data from the Association of University Technology Managers U.S. Licensing Activity Survey, we defined a commercialization pipeline that reflects the typical path intellectual property takes; from initial research funding to startup formation and gross income. We use this pipeline to quantify the performance of academic institutions at each step of the process, as well as overall, and identify the top performing institutions via mean reciprocal rank. The corresponding distributions were visualized and disparities quantified using the Gini coefficient. Results: We found significant discrepancies in commercialization activity between institutions; a small number of institutions contribute to the vast majority of total commercialization activity. By examining select top performing institutions, we suggest improvements universities and technology transfer offices could implement to emulate the environment at these high-performing institutions. Conclusion: Significant disparities in technology transfer performance exist in which a select set of institutions produce a majority share of the total technology transfer activity. This disparity points to missed commercialization opportunities, and thus, further investigation into the distribution of technology transfer effectiveness across institutions and studies of policy changes that would improve the effectiveness of the commercialization pipeline is warranted.

In theory, the strong protection of Intellectual Property Protection (IPRs) would encourage technology transfer from North to South. This study examines the association be-tween IPRs protection in developing countries like India, Pakistan and Bangladesh and technology transfers for the period 1990-2005. Using royalty and license fees as indicator for technology transfer, the study concludes that IPRs protection does encourage technology transfer to these countries. Furthermore, the results indicate positive impact of economic freedom and GDP on technology transfer. However, the impact of Diasporas on technology transfer is found negative in this study.

An intellectual property (IP) audit was conducted among 212 research projects funded by the Department of Science and Technology–Philippine Council for Agriculture, Aquatic, and Natural Resources Research and Development (DOST-PCAARRD) and implemented by the University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB) from 2010–2015. A total of 71 (33%) have the IP component only, while 17 (8%) have both IP and technology commercialization (TC) elements. Of the 17 research projects, 12 (71%) have undergone the technology readiness level (TRL) and are included in the 19 technologies funded by DOST-PCAARRD currently being prioritized by Technology Transfer and Business Development Office (TTBDO) for IP rights (IPRs) protection and TC. Of these technologies, six have ongoing licensing agreements with the private sector, and another three are groomed for a spin-off. All nine have undergone fairness opinion board (FOB) examination, while the remaining 10 are in various stages of IP protection and commercialization. A notable surge in patent application occurred in the first three quarters of 2017 when 14 applications representing 33% of the total patent applications in the last 16 years were filed in the IP Office of the Philippines. As of 2012, with financial support from local and foreign funding, UPLB has produced more than 200 technologies ranging from agriculture and biotechnology to machinery and postharvest technology plus other allied fields. Included in the list are Sinta papaya, BIO-N, Mykovam, virgin coconut oil, and Trichoderma. Some of which have reached the international market earning substantial income for the university and its inventors and breeders principally through royalties ranging from 3–10 % of the licensee’s gross sales. Additional seven technologies funded by other government funding agencies ripe for commercialization are open to manufacturers, distributors, and research service agreements.