In recent years, university patents have been substantially developed mainly because topics on the industrialization of university research outputs have received considerable attention. Previous studies on university patents have mostly focused on factors influencing the production of those patents, but have not yet distinguished between industrialized university patents and unindustrialized university patents. In addition, previous studies have not clearly recognized university patents with commercial value, technological networks, or key technologies that promoted industrialization. Moreover, a few studies have focused on the national dimension attached to university patent technological networks. In this study we incorporate several countries into our model and identify the technological niche positions of those countries. Here, Japan and the United States are playing critical roles in the worldwide technology network of university patents. The results of our study can serve as a reference point for universities worldwide in their allocation of resources and promotion of novel technologies.
Advancing EU–Canada Research and Innovation Collaboration (2014) Guide for Europeans to Canadian science, technology & innovation programs. Rome: Advancing EU–Canada Research and Innovation Collaboration.
2.
AndersonTRDaimTULavoieFF (2007) Measuring the efficiency of university technology transfer. Technovation27(5): 306–318.
3.
ArvanitisSKubliUWoerterM (2008) University-industry knowledge and technology transferrin Switzerland: What university scientists think about co-operation with private enterprises. Research Policy37(10): 1865–1883.
4.
BaldiniN (2008) Negative effects of university patenting: Myths and grounded evidence. Scientometrics75(2): 289–311.
5.
BaldiniN (2009) Implementing Bayh–Dole-like laws: Faculty problems and their impact on university patenting activity. Research Policy38(8): 1217–1224.
6.
BaldiniNGrimaldiRSobreroM (2007) To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics70(2): 333–354.
7.
BallesterCCalvo-ArmengolAZenouY (2006) Who’s who in networks. Wanted: The key player. Econometrica74(5): 1403–1417.
8.
BassSDKurganLA (2010) Discovery of factors influencing patent value based on machine learning in patents in the field of nanotechnology. Scientometrics82(2): 217–241.
9.
BoariCRiboldazziF (2014) How knowledge brokers emerge and evolve: The role of actors’ behaviour. Research Policy43(4): 683–695.
10.
Bodas FreitasIMGeunaARossiF (2013) Finding the right partners: Institutional and personal modes of governance of university-industry interactions. Research Policy42(1): 50–62.
11.
BorgattiSP (2006) Identifying sets of key players in a social network. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory12(1): 21–34.
12.
BranstetterLGFismanRFoleyCF (2006) Do stronger intellectual property rights increase international technology transfer? Empirical evidence from US firm level panel data. Quarterly Journal of Economics121(1): 321–349.
13.
BraunTDióspatonyiIZádorEZsindelyS (2007) Journal gatekeepers indicator-based top universities of the world, of Europe and of 29 countries: A pilot study. Scientometrics71(2): 155–178.
14.
CalvertJPatelP (2002) University-industry research collaborations in the UK. Science and Public Policy30(2): 85–96.
15.
CasperS (2013) The spill-over theory reversed: The impact of regional economies on the commercialization of university science. Research Policy42(5): 1313–1324.
16.
ChenJHJangSLChangCH (2013) The patterns and propensity for international co-invention: The case of China. Scientometrics94(2): 481–495.
17.
ChunyanZPengXM (2008) The entrepreneurial university in China: Nonlinear paths. Science & Public Policy35(9): 637–646.
18.
CrespiGD’EstePFontanaRGeunaA (2011) The impact of academic patenting on university research and its transfer. Research Policy40(1): 55–68.
19.
CzarnitzkiDHussingerKSchneiderC (2012) The nexus between science and industry: Evidence from faculty inventions. Journal of Technology Transfer37(5): 755–776.
20.
DolfsmaWLeydesdorffL (2011) Innovation systems as patent networks: The Netherlands, India and nanotech. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice13(3): 311–326.
21.
EjermoOKarlssonC (2006) Interregional inventor networks as studied by patent coinventorships. Research Policy35(3): 412–430.
22.
EtzkowitzH (2003) Innovation in innovation: the triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Social Science Information42(3): 293–337.
23.
EtzkowitzH (2008) The incubation of innovation. In: EtzkowitzH (ed.) The triple helix. New York, NY: Routledge, 105–121.
24.
EtzkowitzHWebsterAGebhardtCTerraBRC (2000) The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy29(2): 313–330.
25.
EvertonSF (2012) Disruption dark networks (structural analysis in the social sciences). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
FabrizioKRMininAD (2008) Commercializing the laboratory: Faculty patenting and the open science environment. Research Policy37(5): 914–931.
27.
FellerIFeldmanM (2010) The commercialization of academic patents: Black boxes, pipelines, and Rubik’s cubes. Journal of Technology Transfer35(6): 597–616.
28.
ForayDLissoniF (2010) University research and public–private interaction. In: HallBHRosenbergN (eds) Handbook of the economics of innovation. Oxford: Elsevier, 276–308.
29.
FreemanC (1987) Technology policy and economic performance: Lesson from Japan. London: Frances Pinter.
30.
GaoXGuanJRousseauR (2011) Mapping collaborative knowledge production in China using patent co-inventorships. Scientometrics88(2): 343–362.
31.
GilbertRJNewberyDMG (1982) Preemptive patenting and the persistence of monopoly. The American Economics Review72(3): 514–526.
32.
GrafH (2012) Inventor networks in emerging key technologies: Information technology vs. semiconductors. Journal of Evolutionary Economics22(3): 459–480.
33.
GrimaldiRKenneyMSiegelDSWrightM (2011) 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8): 1045–1057.
34.
GrimmHMJaenickeJ (2012) What drives patenting and commerzialisation activity at East German universities? The role of new public policy, institutional environment and individual prior knowledge. Journal of Technology Transfer37(4): 454–477.
35.
GuerreroMUrbanoD (2012) The development of an entrepreneurial university. Journal of Technology Transfer37(1): 43–74.
36.
HarrisCVickersJ (1985) Patent races and the persistence of monopoly. Journal of Industrial Economics33(4): 461–481.
37.
HayterCS (2016) A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success: The role of knowledge intermediaries within an entrepreneurial university ecosystem. Small Business Economics47(3): 633–656.
38.
HendersonRJaffeADTrajtenbergM (1998) Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965–1988. The Review of Economics and Statistics80(1): 119–127.
39.
Hewitt-DundasN (2012) Research intensity and knowledge transfer activity in UK universities. Research Policy41(2): 262–275.
40.
IbarraH (1993) Network centrality, power and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal36(3): 471–501.
41.
IsmailKMajidIAOmarWZW (2011) Commercialization of university patents: A case study. Journal of Marketing Development & Competitiveness5(5): 80–91.
42.
KauppinenI (2014) A moral economy of patents: Case of Finnish research universities’ patent policies. Studies in Higher Education39(10): 1732–1749.
43.
KIIP (2011) A promotion model of utilization of sleeping patents in the perspective of industry and technology market. Seoul: Korea Institute of Intellectual Property.
44.
KimHHuangMJinFBodoffDMoonJChoeY (2012) Triple helix in the agricultural sector of Northeast Asian countries: A comparative study between Korea and China. Scientometrics90(1): 101–120.
45.
KIPO (2011) Report on the analysis of patent performances in national R&D program and directions for policy. Daejeon: Korean Intellectual Property Office.
46.
LawsonC (2013) Academic patenting: The importance of industry support. Journal of Technology Transfer38(4): 509–535.
47.
LeeSKimMS (2010) Inter-technology networks to support innovation strategy: An analysis of Korea’s new growth engines. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice12(1): 88–104.
48.
LeeSKimMSParkY (2009a) ICT co-evolution and Korean ICT strategy: An analysis based on patent data. Telecommunications Policy33(5–6): 253–271.
49.
LeeSYoonBParkY (2009b) An approach to discovering new technology opportunities: Keyword based patent map approach. Technovation, 29(6–7): 481–497.
50.
LeisyteL (2011) University commercialization policies and their implementation in the Netherlands and the United States. Science & Public Policy38(6): 437–448.
51.
LongJCCunninghamFCBraithwaiteJCarswellP (2013) Who are the key players in a new translational research network?BMC Health Services Research13(1): 1–11.
52.
MustarPWrightMClarysseB (2008) University spin-off firms: Lessons from ten years of experience in Europe. Science and Public Policy35(2): 67–80.
OnoM (2012) Historical aspects and current status of entrepreneurship in Japanese universities. The Josai Journal of Business Administration8&9(1): 1–16.
56.
OrtegaJ (2011) Collaboration patterns in patent networks and their relationship with the transfer of technology: The case study of the CSIC patents. Scientometrics87(3): 657–666.
57.
ParkYLeeSLeeS (2012) Patent analysis for promoting technology transfer in multi-technology industries: The Korean aerospace industry case. Journal of Technology Transfer37(3): 355–374.
58.
PowersJBMcDougallPP (2005) University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing20(3): 291–311.
59.
RasmussenE (2008) Government instruments to support the commercialization of university research: Lessons from Canada. Technovation28(8): 506–517.
60.
RasmussenEWrightM (2015) How can universities facilitate academic spin-offs? An entrepreneurial competency perspective. Journal of Technology Transfer40(5): 782–799.
61.
RasmussenaEMoenØGulbrandsenM (2006) Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation26(4): 518–533.
62.
RomerP (1990) Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy98(5): 71–102.
63.
ScottJ (2003) Social network analysis: A handbook. London: Sage.
64.
SoonCChoH (2011) Flows of relations and communication among Singapore political bloggers and organizations: The networked public sphere approach. Journal of Information Technology & Politics8(1): 93–109.
65.
SwarBKhanGF (2013) An analysis of the information technology outsourcing domain: A social network and triple helix approach. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology64(11): 2366–2378.
66.
Tekes (2013) Path to creating business from research: Evaluation of TULI programmes. Helsinki: Tekes.
67.
ThursbyJGThursbyMC (2005) Faculty patent activity and assignment patterns. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
68.
ThursbyJGFullerAWThursbyM (2009) US faculty patenting: Inside and outside the university. Research Policy38(1): 14–25.
69.
TsengCYTingPH (2013) Patent analysis for technology development of artificial intelligence: A country-level comparative study. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice15(4): 463–475.
70.
US Department of Energy (2014) Audit report: Technology transfer and commercialization efforts at the Department of Energy’s National Laboratories. Washington, DC: US. Department of Energy.
71.
WalshJPBabaYGotoAYasakiY (2008) Promoting university-industry linkages in Japan: Faculty responses to a changing policy environment. Prometheus26(1): 39–54.
72.
WangHZhouY (2009) University-owned enterprises as entry point to the knowledge economy in China. Science & Public Policy36(2): 103–108.
73.
WangYHuangJChenYPanXChenJ (2013) Have Chinese universities embraced their third mission? New insight from a business perspective. Scientometrics, 97(2): 207–222.
74.
WIPO (2015) World intellectual property indicators. Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization.
WongPKSinghA (2010) University patenting activities and their link to the quantity and quality of scientific publications. Scientometrics83(1): 271–294.
77.
WonglimpiyaratJ (2015) The process of entrepreneurial revolution: Case study of the national research university of Thailand. International Journal of Innovation & Technology Management. 12(5): 1–14.
