An Analysis of Academic Patents owned by Swedish based firms Evangelos Bourelos, PhD University of Gothenburg Daniel Ljungberg, Lecturer University of Gothenburg Maureen McKelvey, Professor University of Gothenburg

Academic Patents Patent Value

Contribution Academic vs Non-Academic Patents, owned by a firm University Corporate Patents Academic Patents Non-Academic Patents

Focus on firm-owned patents Academic patents= At least 1 academic inventor Value= Citations Corporate Patents

Academic Patenting in Sweden Professor’s privilege 80% owned by firms Patent Value Lissoni et al. 2008

Research nature and patent value Basic vs Applied Research Applied Research Basic Research Academic Inventors Firms Focus on short-term returns Academic patents – higher long- term value

University-Industry Collaboration Academic Inventors Inclination to science based patents Long-term value Firms Involve academics in patents leading to immediate returns Short-term Academic Patents VS Non-academic Patents

Hypothesis 1 The effect of academic inventors on the value of firm- owned patents is differentiated over time, with an expected disadvantage in the short-term and an expected advantage in the long-term

Type of collaboration Technology University-Industry Collaboration Patent

Core technology patents Core: high resource commitment by firm, competitive advantage to that technology Non-core patents Higher patent value Lower patent value

Hypothesis 2 Patents belonging to firms 'core technologies have higher value, as compared to patents in non-core technologies

Effect on academic patent’s value Academic inventor Patent value Technological profile

Effect on academic patent’s value Academic inventor Patent value Technological profile

Hypothesis 3 Controlling for whether patents belong to the core technologies of firms decreases the effect of academic inventors on patent value

Data Firm owned academic and non academic patents PATSTAT-KITeS Swedish inventor Swedish patents Firm-owned Firm data (Orbis, etc ) KEINS/APE-INV

Dependent variables Patent value: Total number of forward citations Short-term patent value: The number of forward citations within the first 3 years Long-term patent value: The number of forward citations received after the first three years

Independent variables Binary 1/0 1 if at least one academic inventor Academic Inventors Binary 1/0 1 if a patent is part of the firm’s core technologies (Grandstrand et al. 1997)

Control variables Backward patent citations Non-patent references Number of inventors IPC classes Firm dummies Priority year dummies Dummies for technological class

Descriptive statistics

Non-academic patentsAcademic patentsDifference % z-test P > |z| Short-term * Long-term Total Table 3. Forward patent citations (FPCs) by inventorship: Mean citations per patent.

Econometric results Short-term citationsLong-term citationsTotal (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6) FPC<3 FPC>3 FPC +Core Academic inventor ***-0.137*-0.139** ** (0.0722)(0.0720)(0.0581)(0.0584)(0.0557) Core technology 0.420*** 0.431*** 0.405*** (0.0322) (0.0320) (0.0273) BPC0.0334***0.0368***0.0188***0.0222***0.0216***0.0252*** ( )( )( )( )( )( ) NPR0.258***0.250***0.121***0.112***0.190***0.182*** (0.0357)(0.0353)(0.0361) (0.0302)(0.0301) #Inventors0.0763***0.0711***0.0674***0.0610***0.0725***0.0671*** (0.0106)(0.0105)(0.0107) ( )( ) #IPC classes0.147***0.161***0.135***0.152***0.136***0.151*** (0.0139)(0.0140)(0.0128)(0.0129)(0.0113) Firm dummiesincluded*** Priority yearincluded*** OST7included***included**included***included**included*** Constant-0.940***-1.217***0.835***0.578***0.943***0.692*** (0.167)(0.172)(0.128)(0.130)(0.118) Observations16,053 Negative Binomial regressions

Econometric results Short- term value Academic Inventor Short- term value Academic Inventor Core *** *0.420***

Econometric results Long- term value Academic Inventor Core Long- term value ** ***

Econometric results Patent value Academic Inventor Core Patent value ** ***

Conclusions Academic patents have higher long-term value Academic patents, owned by firm (and not comparing ownership), have lower short-term value but similar long-term Firms might seek collaboration for short-term returns

Conclusions Patent value is heavily dependent on technological profile of the firm Core patents have higher value Technological profile an important control when assessing academic patenting Academic involvement per se is not adequate to evaluate the patent value Technological profile and furthermore the collaboration type has to be assessed

THANKS Questions?