Gestão & Produção
https://gestaoeproducao.com/article/doi/10.1590/0104-530x4710-20
Gestão & Produção
Artigo Original

Motivation for the development of patents in universities in the state of Pernambuco, Brazil

Jabson Herber Profiro de Oliveira; João Policarpo Rodrigues Lima; Manoel Raimundo Sena Junior; Ana Cristina de Almeida Fernandes

Downloads: 1
Views: 77

Abstract

Abstract: This paper presents the main factors associated with the motivation of researchers from two universities in the state of Pernambuco, Brazil, to develop patents. To do so, the researchers responded to a Likert-scale survey. Through a principal components analysis, it was verified that the factors that serve as barriers to the development of patents in the universities are associated with limitations in the support given by the TTO (Technology Transfer Office) and the amount of benefits offered to researchers. Likewise, the main motivating factors were associated with improvements in the TTO infrastructure and with the expansion of benefits.

Keywords

Industrial property, Patent, University, Technological Innovation Center

Referências

Abdi H., Williams L. J. Principal component analysis. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics. 2010;2(4):433-59.

Acs Z. J., Anselin L., Varga A. Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Research Policy. 2002;31(7):1069-85.

Agrawal A., Henderson R. Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science. 2002;48(1):44-60.

Arza V., De Fuentes C., Dutrénit G., Vazquez C. Channels and benefits of interactions between public research organizations and industry: comparing country cases in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Developing national systems of innovation: university-industry interactions in the global south. 2015:165-93.

Highlights of AUTM’s U.S. Licensing Activity Survey, FY2014. 2014.

AUTM. 2016.

Baldini N., Grimaldi R., Sobrero M. To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics. 2007;70(2):333-54.

Barbosa M. R., Lima J. P. R., Fernandes A. C. A interação universidades-empresas e o processo de inovação em Pernambuco: o caso da Engenharia Elétrica e o setor de eletricidade e gás. Ensaios FEE. 2016;37(3):769-800.

Bolfarine H., Bussab W. O. Elementos de amostragem. 2005.

Bramwell A., Wolfe D. A. Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial University of Waterloo. Research Policy. 2008;37(8):1175-87.

Lei nº 10.973, de 2 de dezembro de 2004. Dispõe sobre incentivos à inovação e à pesquisa científica e tecnológica no ambiente produtivo e dá outras providências. 2004.

Breznitz S. M., Feldman M. P. The engaged university. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2012;37(2):139-57.

Brito E. V., Fausto D. A. Critérios utilizados por universidades públicas para o abandono de patentes e de pedidos de patentes não licenciados. Revista iPecege. 2015;1(2):147-68.

Plano de ciência, tecnologia e inovação para o desenvolvimento sustentável do nordeste brasileiro. 2014.

Closs L., Ferreira G., Sampaio C., Perin M. Intervenientes na transferência de tecnologia universidade-empresa: o caso PUCRS. Revista de Administração Contemporânea. 2012;16(1):59-78.

Cohen W. M., Nelson R. R., Walsh J. P. Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science. 2002;48(1):1-23.

Cowan R., Zinovyeva N. University effects on regional innovation. Research Policy. 2013;42(3):788-800.

Czarnitzki D., Hussinger K., Schneider C. Commercializing academic research: the quality of faculty patenting. Industrial and Corporate Change. 2011;20(5):1403-37.

De Fuentes C., Dutrénit G. Best channels of academia–industry interaction for long-term benefit. Research Policy. 2012;41(9):1666-82.

Decter M., Bennett D., Leseure M. University to business technology transfer-UK and USA comparisons. Technovation. 2007;27(3):145-55.

Dias A. A., Porto G. S. Gestão de transferência de tecnologia na Inova Unicamp. Revista de Administração Contemporânea. 2013;17(3):263-84.

Fernandes A. C., Souza B. C., Silva A. S. Demanda e oferta de tecnologia e conhecimento em região periférica: a interação universidade-empresa no Nordeste Brasileiro. Em busca da inovação: interação universidade-empresa no Brasil. 2011.

Ferreira M. H. W. Análise da produção científica e tecnológica do programa de pós-graduação em ciências farmacêuticas da UFPE. 2015.

Foltz J. D., Barham B. L., Chavas J., Kim K. Efficiency and technological change at US research universities. Journal of Productivity Analysis. 2012;37(2):171-86.

Gallini N. T. The economics of patents: lessons from recent U.S. patent reform. The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2002;16(2):131-54.

Galván R. G. Patentamiento universitario e innovación en México, país en desarrollo: teoría y política. Revista de la Educación Superior. 2017;46(184):77-96.

Gil A. C. Como elaborar projetos de pesquisa. 2008.

Göktepe D., Mahagaonkar P. What do scientists want: money or fame?. 2008.

Gullo L. M. G., Guerrante R. S. Maiores depositantes de pedidos de patentes no Brasil, com prioridade brasileira (publicados entre 1999 e 2003). 2006.

Haase H., Araujo E. C., Dias J. Inovações vistas pelas patentes: exigências frente às novas funções das universidade. Revista Brasileira de Inovação. 2005;4(2):329-62.

Hair Jr. J. F., Black W. C., Babin B. J., Anderson R. E., Tatham R. L. Análise multivariada de dados. 2009.

Henderson R., Jaffe A. B., Trajtenberg M. Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965-1988. The Review of Economics and Statistics. 1998;80(1):119-27.

Hora H. R. M., Monteiro G. T. R., Arica J. Confiabilidade em questionários para qualidade: um estudo com o coeficiente alfa de Cronbach. Produto & Produção. 2010;11(2):85-103.

Huszár S., Prónay S., Buzás N. Examining the differences between the motivations of traditional and entrepreneurial scientists. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. 2016;5(25):1-22.

Jensen R., Thursby J. G., Thursby M. C. Disclosure and licensing of university inventions: ‘The best we can do with the s**t we get to work with’. International Journal of Industrial Organization. 2003;21(9):1271-300.

Jolliffe I. T. Principal component analysis.. 1986.

Jolliffe I. T. Principal component analysis. 2002.

Kaiser H. F. The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1958;23(3):187-200.

Kalutkiewicz M. J., Ehman R. L. Patents as proxies: NIH hubs of innovation. Nature Biotechnology. 2014;32(6):536-7.

Leydesdorff L., Meyer M. The decline of university patenting and the end of the Bayh-Dole effect. Scientometrics. 2010;83(2):355-62.

Li D., Azoulay P., Sampat B. The applied value of public investments in biomedical research. Science. 2017;356(6333):78-81.

Lima J. P. R., Fernandes A. C. Demandas e ofertas tecnológicas em economias retardatárias: anotações a partir de dois segmentos econômicos no Nordeste brasileiro. Revista Brasileira de Inovação. 2009;8(2):303-40.

Liu Y., Tan L., Cheng Y. University Patent Licensing and Its Contribution to China’s National Innovation System.. Economic Impacts of Intellectual Property-Conditioned Government Incentives. 2016:259-77.

Mardia K. V., Kent J. T., Bibby J. M. Multivariate analysis. 1979.

Markman G. D., Phan P. H., Balkin D. B., Gianiodis P. T. Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. Journal of Business Venturing. 2005;20(2):241-63.

Maroco J., Garcia-Marques T. Qual a fiabilidade do alfa de Cronbach? Questões antigas e soluções modernas?. Laboratório de Psicologia. 2006;4(1):65-90.

Mendes C. D. S., Gullo L. M. G., Guerrante R. D. S. Principais titulares de pedidos de patentes no Brasil, com prioridade brasileira: depositados no período de 2004 a 2008. 2011.

Mowery D. C., Nelson R. R., Sampat B. N., Ziedonis A. A. The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980. Research Policy. 2001;30(1):99-119.

Mowery D. C., Sampat B. N., Ziedonis A. A. Learning to patent: institutional experience, learning, and the characteristics of US university patents after the Bayh-Dole Act, 1981-1992. Management Science. 2002;48(1):73-89.

Muscio A. What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2010;35(2):181-202.

Oliveira R. M. O. Proteção e comercialização da pesquisa acadêmica do Brasil: motivações e percepções dos inventores. 2011.

Patents, innovation and economic performance OECD conference proceedings. 2004.

Osano H. M. Universities and development of regional innovation ecosystems: case of Kenya. WTR. 2017;6:113-29.

Parente R., Petrone M., Cerrato D. Co-patenting between university and business companies: evidence from Italy. 2011.

Park W. G. International patent protection: 1960-2005. Research Policy. 2008;37(4):761-6.

Pavitt K. Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy. 1984;13(6):343-73.

Pinho M., Fernandes A. C. Relevance of university-industry links for firms from developing countries: exploring different surveys. Developing national systems of innovation: university-industry interactions in the global south. 2015.

Póvoa L. M. C. Patentes de universidades e institutos públicos de pesquisa e a transferência de tecnologia para as empresas no Brasil. 2008.

Póvoa L. M. C., Rapini M. S. Technology transfer from universities and public research institutes to firms in Brazil: what is transferred and how the transfer is made. Science & Public Policy. 2010;37(2):147-59.

Ragavan S. Patent and trade disparities in developing countries. 2012.

Saragossi S., Potterie B. P. What patent data reveal about universities: the case of Belgium. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2003;28(1):47-51.

Sharma P., Tripathi R. C. Patent citation: a technique for measuring the knowledge flow of information and innovation. World Patent Information. 2017;51:31-42.

Siegel D. S., Veugelers R., Wright M. Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 2007;23(4):640-60.

Siegel D. S., Waldman D., Link A. Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Research Policy. 2003;32(1):27-48.

Silva K. Patentes acadêmicas no Brasil: um novo panorama de contribuição das universidades na via PCT. 2014.

Tian Y. From publishing to patenting: survey construction of Swedish academics’ motivations. 2015.

Torkomian A. Panorama dos núcleos de inovação tecnológica no Brasil. Transferência de tecnologia: estratégias para a estruturação de núcleos de inovação tecnológica. 2009:21-37.

The role of intellectual property rights in technology transfer and economic growth: theory and evidence. 2006.

Van Gils M., Vissers G., Wit J. Selecting the right channel for knowledge transfer between industry and science: consider the R&D-activity. European Journal of Innovation Management. 2009;12(4):492-511.

Wang G., Guan J. The role of patenting activity for scientific research: a study of academic inventors from China’s nanotechnology. Journal of Informetrics. 2010;4(3):338-50.

Weckowska D. M. Learning in university technology transfer offices: transactions-focused and relations-focused approaches to commercialization of academic research. Technovation. 2015;41-42:62-74.

Wong P., Ho Y., Singh A. Towards an “entrepreneurial university” model to support knowledge-based economic development: the case of the National University of Singapore. World Development. 2007;35(6):941-58.

Zuniga P. The state of patenting at research institutions in developing countries: policy approaches and practices. 2011.

5ff6fc160e8825586d5aeac0 gp Articles

Gest. Prod.

Share this page
Page Sections