The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 132–154 | Cite as

Engineering graduate students’ views on the effective ownership of academic patents

  • So Young SohnEmail author
  • Eun Jin Han


For sustainable and effective innovation, who should own an academic patent obtained as a result of funded research? The issue of ownership can influence the motivation of academic researchers. In this paper, we address this issue from the perspective of engineering graduate students who have experience of R&D projects. We aim to investigate engineering graduate students’ views on inter-organizations aspects of patent ownership; and patent ownership policies within university. In this paper, we carried out classification tree analyses of preferred ownership categories, using various factors related to ‘researchers and the environment for R&D,’ ‘technology,’ ‘patenting activities,’ ‘sponsors,’ ‘currently existing ownership policy,’ and ‘compensation policy’. Our findings can help design an effective ownership policy that promotes innovation by incorporating the views of students who will be important asset for future innovation.


Academic patenting Ownership issue Engineering graduate students Classification tree analysis 

JEL Classification

C38 O31 



This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) Grant funded by the Korea Government (MSIP) (2016R1A2A1A05005270). We thank W. S. Lee and J. H. Park who participated in the early stage data analysis of this research.


  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Audretsch, D. (2000). Is university entrepreneurship different? Mimeo, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  4. Baark, E. (1988). The value of technology: A survey of the Chinese theoretical debate and its policy implications. Research Policy, 17(5), 269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2007). To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics, 70(2), 333–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bercovitz, J. E. L., & Feldman, M. P. (2007). Fishing upstream: Firm innovation strategy and university research alliances. Research Policy, 36(7), 930–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., & Stone, C. J. (1984). Classification and regression trees. Los Angeles, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  8. Chamas, C. I. (2008). Nanotechnology intellectual property in Brazil: Preliminary research note. World Patent Information, 30(2), 146–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chang, Y. W., Hsu, P. Y., & Wu, Z. Y. (2015). Exploring managers’ intention to use business intelligence: The role of motivations. Behaviour and Information Technology, 34(3), 273–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen, Y., Gupta, A., & Hoshower, L. (2006). Factors that motivate business faculty to conduct research: An expectancy theory analysis. Journal of Education for Business, 81(4), 179–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chew, P. K. (1992). Faculty-generated inventions: Who owns the golden egg? Wisconsin Law Review, 75, 259–306.Google Scholar
  12. Chiang, C. F., & Jang, S. S. (2008). An expectancy theory model for hotel employee motivation. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(2), 313–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chiu, Y. J., & Chen, Y. W. (2007). Using AHP in patent valuation. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(7/8), 1054–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cunningham, R. (2014). Information environmentalism: A governance framework for intellectual property rights. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deng, Y. (2007). Private value of European patents. European Economic Review, 51(7), 1785–1812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duval-Couetil, N., Pilcher, J., Weilerstein, P., & Gotch, C. (2014). Undergraduate involvement in intellectual property protection at universities: Views from technology transfer professionals. International Journal of Engineering Education, 30(1), 60–71.Google Scholar
  17. Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Geuna, A., & Rossi, F. (2011). Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting. Research Policy, 40(8), 1068–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Göktepe-Hulten, D., & Mahagaonkar, P. (2010). Inventing and patenting activities of scientists: In the expectation of money or reputation? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(4), 401–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grimaldi, R., & Von Tunzelmann, N. (2002). Assessing collaborative, pre-competitive R&D projects: The case of the UK LINK scheme. R&D Management, 32(2), 165–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grönqvist, C. (2009). The private value of patents by patent characteristics: evidence from Finland. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(2), 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hall, B. H., & Zeidonis, R. H. (2001). The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry, 1979–1995. RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), 101–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harhoff, D., & Hoisl, K. (2007). Institutionalized incentives for ingenuity-patent value and the German Employees’ Invention Act. Research Policy, 36(8), 1143–1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haupt, R., Kloyer, M., & Lange, M. (2007). Patent indicator for the technology life cycle development. Research Policy, 36(3), 387–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hippel, E. V., & Krogh, G. V. (2003). Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organization Science, 14(2), 209–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holdford, D., & Lovelace-Elmore, B. (2001). Applying the principles of human motivation to pharmaceutical education. Journal of Pharmacy Teaching, 8(4), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jaffe, A. B., & Lerner, J. (2001). Reinventing public R&D: Patent policy and the commercialization of national laboratory technologies. RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), 167–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ju, Y., Sohn, S. Y., Ahn, J., & Choi, J. Y. (2014). Balanced scorecard based performance analysis of accreditation for engineering education. Industrial Engineering and Management Systems, 13(1), 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2009). Reconsidering the Bayh–Dole Act and the current university invention ownership model. Research Policy, 38(9), 1407–1422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kim, K. S. (2009). A study on joint research and development agreements. Journal of Business Administration and Law, 19(3), 405–435.Google Scholar
  31. Kollner, H., & Dowing, M. (2004). Licensing as a commercialization strategy for new technology-based firms. Research Policy, 33(8), 1141–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kumar, V., & Jain, P. K. (2003). Commercialization of new technologies in India: An empirical study of perceptions of technology institutions. Technovation, 23(2), 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Landry, R., Amara, N., & Rherrad, I. (2006). Why are some university researchers more likely to create spin-offs than others? Evidence from Canadian universities. Research Policy, 35(10), 1599–1615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lerner, J., & Tirole, J. (2002). Some simple economics of open source. The Journal of Industrial Eonomics, 50(2), 197–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2005). University-based technology initiatives: Quantitative and qualitative evidence. Research Policy, 34(3), 253–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Long, F. (1989). Technology. Trade and international economic policy. Technology in Society, 11(2), 261–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lynskey, M. J. (2006). Transformative technology and institutional transformation: Coevolution of biotechnology venture firms and the institutional framework in Japan. Research Policy, 35(9), 1389–1422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marion, T. J., Dunlap, D. R., & Friar, J. H. (2012). The university entrepreneur: A census and survey of attributes and outcomes. R&D Management, 42(5), 401–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mendoza, P. (2007). Academic capitalism and doctoral student socialization: A case study. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(1), 71–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nerkar, A., & Roberts, P. W. (2004). Technological and product-market experience and the success of new product introductions in the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal, 25(89), 779–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nyttiggorande av högskoleuppfinningar SOU. (2005). 95. Available at ¨/
  42. O’Shea, R. P., Chugh, H., & Allen, T. J. (2008). Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: A conceptual framework. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(6), 653–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003). Turning science into business: Patenting and licensing at public research organizations. OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  44. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Patel, S. H. (1996). Graduate students’ ownership and attribution rights in intellectual property. Indiana Law Journal, 71(2), 481–512.Google Scholar
  46. Rasmussen, E., Moen, Ø., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2006). Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation, 26(4), 518–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reitzig, M. (2004). Improving patent valuations for management purposes validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales. Research Policy, 33(6–7), 939–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Roberts, E. (1991). Entrepreneurs in high technology, lessons from MIT and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roberts, D., Hughes, M., & Kertbo, K. (2014). Exploring consumers’ motivations to engage in innovation through co-creation activities. European Journal of Marketing, 48(1/2), 147–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schwartz, E. S. (2004). Patents and R&D as real options. Economic Notes by Banca Monte dei Pashi di Siena SpA, 33(1), 23–54.Google Scholar
  51. Sellenthin, M. (2004). Who should own university research? An exploratory study of the impact of patent rights regimes in Sweden and Germany on the incentives to patent research results. Technical report, Department of Technology and Social Change, Linköping university.Google Scholar
  52. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., Atwater, L., & Link, A. (2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21, 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Silvernagel, C., Schultz, R. R., Moser, S. B., & Aune, M. (2009). Student-generated intellectual property: Perceptions of ownership by faculty and students. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 12, 13–33.Google Scholar
  55. Sohn, S. Y., & Ju, Y. H. (2015). Design and implementation of a six sigma game to develop entrepreneurship in engineering students. International Journal of Engineering Education, 31(2), 1–13.Google Scholar
  56. Sohn, S. Y., & Lee, M. Y. (2012). Conjoint analysis of R&D contract agreements for industry-funded university research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(4), 532–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sohn, S. Y., Lee, W. S., & Ju, Y. H. (2013). Valuing academic patents and intellectual properties: Different perspectives of willingness to pay and sell. Technovation, 33(1), 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sohn, S. Y., & Moon, T. H. (2003). Structural equation model for predicting technology commercialization success index (TCSI). Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70(9), 885–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sohn, S. Y., & Moon, T. H. (2004). Decision tree based on data envelopment analysis for effective technology commercialization. Expert Systems with Applications, 26(2), 279–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sterzi, V. (2013). Patent quality and ownership: An analysis of UK faculty patenting. Research Policy, 42(2), 564–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sun, Y., Wang, N., Yin, C., & Zhang, J. X. (2015). Understanding the relationships between motivators and effort in crowdsourcing marketplaces: A nonlinear analysis. International Journal of Information Management, 35(3), 267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Von Krogh, G., & Spaeth, S. (2007). The open source software phenomenon: Characteristics that promote research. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 16(3), 236–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  64. Walter, S. G., Schmidt, A., & Walter, A. (2016). Patenting rationales of academic entrepreneurs in weak and strong organizational regimes. Research Policy, 45(2), 533–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Weckowska, D. M., Molas-Gallart, J., Tang, P., Twigg, D., Castro-Martínez, E., Kijeńska-Dąbrowska, I., et al. (2015). University patenting and technology commercialization—Legal frameworks and the importance of local practice. R&D Management. doi: 10.1111/radm.12123.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information and Industrial EngineeringYonsei UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations