1. Introduction

The importance of intellectual property rights (IPR) in protecting innovation and business has increased consistently over the last decades (Fagerberg; Mowery; Nelson; 2005). The innovation paradigm of industry has also changed. The term “open innovation” is now used to describe the attitude of industry, more focused in the business model and the market and more open to IPR trade (Chesbrough, 2003). Also, interaction between industry and university has increased and a code of conduct for that interaction has been agreed on by both parties (EUA, EIRMA, 2006).

Eurostat, the European Commission and the European Patent Office have produced data to survey innovation and the use of IPR by European countries and regions (European Innovation Scoreboard, 2006; European Commission, 2003). Several authors have discussed the attitudes of researchers and the role of technology transfer offices at universities and other institutions (Siegel, Waldman and Link, 2002; Moutinho, Fontes, and Godinho, 2003). But the culture seems to be changing rapidly. It is useful to briefly survey recent data and calculate and compare trends to evaluate the result of current policies and practices. Moreover, evaluating how the participation of universities has changed is in order, in view of a similar tendency in USA since the Bayh Dole Act (1980) and the initiatives or governments in both Spain and Portugal to foster that trend ( RedOTRI in Spain and the GAPI and OTIC networks in Portugal ).

2. Trends in the use of patents and IPR in general. Innovation indicators

We used data of the number of international patents requests more common in Europe (PCT and EPO) in recent years (2002-2006). The data have been treated by linear regression to an exponential law. The growth rate over the period and the value for 2006, adjusted by regression, are shown in Tables 1 and 2. The use of international patents by Spain is still low (20-29% of the average of the EU countries) and very low for Portugal (6-7%). However, the growth rate is high. Only 2 more countries in the European Union show growth rates of 10% or more for both PCT and EPO patent requests.

Fig. 1 shows the number of patent requests by million population as a function of rate of growth. Disparity between the countries is very high. Despite the high growth rate we estimate that it will take some 20 years for Spain and 30 or more for Portugal to get to the average level of EU, let alone the level of the leaders (Nordic countries, Germany and the Netherlands).

We treated data from the INNO METRICS report on innovation (“Innovation Scoreboard 2006”, prepared for the European commission by the Joint Research Centre and MERIT, Maastricht). The report is based on 25 indicators, grouped as follows: Three groups of indicators of input: “Innovation drivers” (level of education),” Knowledge creation” (funding of R&D) and“Innovation and entrepreneurship” (level of innovation and early stage capital in SME’s); Two groups of indicators of output: “Applications” (employment and sales in new and high-tech products) and “Intellectual property”. The radar representation of data for Spain and Portugal are shown in Figs. 2 and 3. Fig. 2 shows Spain in a level close to average in Applications and Innovation drivers but low in IPR. Portugal does well in Innovation and Entrepreneurship only. When we represent the 5 indicators within IPR (Fig. 3) we can see that only the use of design and trade marks are at a level close to average. The use of patents is very low.

Table 1
PCT patent applications to the EU-27 countries in 2006, rate per million population and annual average growth rate (2000-2006)

Both governments, of Portugal and Spain, have introduced incentives and networks to promote innovation, entrepreneurship and IPR use by universities. Networks of offices have been introduced in Spain (OTRI, 60 universities) and Portugal (GAPI and OTIC, 13 universities). It is interesting to see their effect on the contribution of universities, as a “sector”, at the national level. The result is surprising and very positive. Fig. 4 shows the growing fraction of national patents coming from universities in Portugal. Table 3 shows data for Spanish universities, both at national level and PCT´s, over the period 2002-2006.

Table 2
European patent applications per million population in the 27 EU countries in 2006 and annual average growth rate (2000-2006)

These date are surprising because data from USA show a growth, following the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, from les than 1% to about 4% [1,6], which is considered a success, while the level in Spain is now 12-14% and 35% in Portugal. Does this mean that the universities are moving more rapidly to generate and protect innovation than industry?

3. Discussion

Interaction between industry and universities is nowadays more intense. Also, the number of spin-offs coming from university groups is growing, especially at some campuses.

Not all areas are equally prone to university based innovation. The very comprehensive report prepared by the CERM Foundation (CERM Foundation, 2005) indicates that the areas in which universities contribute more, in the range 5-8%, are Medical Technology, Chemical Engineering, Pharmaceutical /Cosmetics and Agriculture/Food Chemistry. Biotechnology is a special case: universities contribute with 22%.

Figure 1:
PCT patent applications per million population, in the EU-27 countries in 2006 versus annual average growth rate over the period 2002 to 2006

Figure 2:
Comparing data of innovation indicators for Spain and Portugal with the average of EU-25 and leader countries

Figure 3: Comparing data for IPR use (five indicators) in Spain and Portugal with EU-25 average - values per million population

Table 3
Share of Patents Application by Universities in Spain

Figure 4
Portuguese Patent applications (% by sector, 2001 - 2006)

The 2007 report of the CRUE on the RedOTRI (Annual Report, 2007) provides interesting data: between 2001 and 2006 the number of universities generating at least one spin-off has grown 3 times, the number of spin-offs more than 3 times (from 39 to 143). The involvement of the various universities is unequal: two universities generated 1/3 of the total of spin-offs created. The number of licensing agreements signed has grown almost 4 times (from 50 to 192).

A detailed report on spin-offs in Portugal is available (Rodrigues, Videira and Fontes, 2007) which covers many topics, such as links, motivation, type of funding and clients – but comprehensive data on IP and licensing is lacking. A 2003 survey on researcher’s attitudes regarding patenting (sample of 10% respondents in the biotechnology and life sciences areas) showed low willingness to get involved in patenting. However, the attitudes and culture are changing rapidly. The contribution of universities to IPR is nowadays connected to value creation initiatives. We lack data about success rates, job creation and turnover. Evaluation of these developments is required to have a comprehensive evaluation.

Figure 5
PCT patent applications per million inhabitants in 2006* vs scientific ISI publications per million inhabitants in 2006

In a previous work we have shown that the number of international publications in a country correlates very highly with the number of doctorates (correlation 98%). We find that the number of publications does not correlate so highly with patents: 50% (Fig. 5). In fact, a research university can be very productive in publications without engaging in innovation, spin-off creation and licensing IPR. The culture of technology transfer and entrepreneurship may be present and be strong or not. Some authors make a distinction between user-directed commercialization and science directed commercialization in Universities and distinguish between academic entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial academics (Gulbrandsen, Slipersaeter, 2007) – the latter adapt their agendas to get more funding but do not promote or get involved in spin-offs.

It is obvious that the culture of entrepreneurship and value creation profits from an active R & D environment. But this environment may exist per se without the entrepreneurial spirit. So, the traditional model of the HumboltianUniversity is now challenged. And, for the best universities, that challenge lies mostly in the modern approach to the so called “third mission” of universities (Bonaccorsi and Daraio, 2007; Gulbrandsen and Slipersaeter, 2007; VINNOVA, 2003).

The prevailing paradigm in innovation has been described as “open innovation”, and assumes that firms are using ideas and knowledge from outside the boundaries of the firm (Chesbrough, 2003; Chesbrough, 2008). Intellectual property plays an important part in it. The use of university research in firm innovation has been reviewed recently by Kira Fabrizio (Fabrizio in Chesbrough, 2008), mostly based on the US experience. Geographical proximity seems to play a role. She uses scientific publications as a proxy for firm basic research and co-authorship with a university researcher as a proxy for collaborative focus. But a degree of research independence from university research is also found to be a competitive advantage. Firms closer to university research, get to know about major research findings at least a year before publication. Pharmaceutical firms that collaborate with universities generate more important patents.

Most international studies do not include enough data on Spain and Portugal to enable a comparative discussion (AUTM LicensingSurvey, 2005; Callan, 2001). Some studies aggregate triadic patent data (EU, Towards a European Research Area, 2005; Rodríguez Pomeda, 2005), which does not reflect well the current trend in international patenting in many European countries.

It is recognized that the growing involvement of universities in IPR does not go without difficulties, generating delays with time spent in negotiations. Selective patenting, nonexclusive licensing and speedy licence negotiations are recommended (Fabrizio in Chesbrough, 2008).

4. Conclusions

Data show that the use of intellectual property rights (IPR), as compared with the EU average, is low in Spain (20-29%) and very low in Portugal (6-7%). However, the annual rate of growth is high (10-15%). Surprisingly, the participation of Universities in the country totals is very high (12-14% in Spain; 35% in Portugal) as compared to other countries – and in particular the USA (probably not more than 5 %, now). The effect of the technology transfer networks -RedOTRI in Spain and GAPI and OTIC’s in Portugal- seems to be very positive in promoting technology transfer and entrepreneurship with proper use of IPR. More data are needed about university spin-offs and industry-university interactions to fully evaluate the trend. The low level of use of IPR by firms is bound to affect innovation. It also affects the value of firms based on technologies – for lack of a portfolio to defend their business from competitors.

References

Fagerberg, J.; Mowery, D. C; Nelson, R.R. (2005) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford UP.

Chesbrough, H. (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Tchnology. Boston, MA, Harvard BS Press.

EUA, EIRMA (2006) “Responsible Partnering”

European Innovation Scoreboard (2006) Comparative Analysis of Innovation Performance. Pro Inno Europe – Inno Metrics.

European Commission (2003) Third European Report on Science & Technology Indicators.

Mowery, D. C. and Sampat, B. N. (2005), Universities in National Innovation Systems, in "The Oxford Handbook on Innovation", OxfordUniversity Press

RedOTRI (2007) Annual Report, CRUE

CERM Foundation (2005) The Value of Patents for Today’s Economy and Society. Final Report, Siena.

Siegel, D.; Waldman, D.; Link, A (2002), “Assessing the Impact of Organizational Practices on the Relative Productivity of University Technology Transfer Offices”, Reseach Policy, 1375, 1-22.

Moutinho, P. S. F.; Fontes, M.; Godinho, M. M. (2003) “The influence of Scientists Attitudes and Perception on University Patenting”, 5th Triple Helix Conference, Turin.

Rodrigues, C.; Videira, P.; Fontes, M. (2007) Resultados do Inquérito às Empresas Spin-offs de Investigação, DMS, INETI.

Bonaccorsi, A. and Daraio, C (2007), Universities and Strategic Knowledge Creation, Eduard Elgar Ed.

Gulbrandsen, M.; Slipersaeter, S. (2007), The Third Mission and the Entrepreneurial University Model, in Bonaccorsi and Daraio, 2007.

VINNOVA (2003) Commercialization of Academic Research Results. Nordfors Ed.

Chesbrough, H, (2008) Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, Oxford UP.

Fabrizio, K. R. “The Use of University Research in Firm Innovation”, in Chesbrough, 2008.

AUTM LicensingSurvey – FY2005

Callan, B. (2001) “Generating spin-offs: evidence from across the OECD”, Science Technology Industry Review nº 26.

EU, Towards a European Research Area. Key Figures 2005.

Rodríguez Pomeda, J. (2005) “Comentarios sobre el Documento de la Comisión Europea Towards a European Research Area”. Key Figures 2005, madri+d, Nº 32.