An Analysis of Academic Patents owned by Swedish
based firms
Daniel Ljungberg, Lecturer
University of Gothenburg
Evangelos Bourelos, PhD
University of Gothenburg
Maureen McKelvey, Professor
University of Gothenburg
 Academic Patents
 Patent Value
Contribution
Academic vs Non-Academic
Patents, owned by a firm
University
Academic
Patents
Corporate
Patents
Non-Academic
Patents
Focus on firm-owned patents
 Academic patents= At least 1 academic inventor
Corporate
Patents
 Value= Citations
Academic Patenting in Sweden
 Professor’s privilege
 80% owned by firms
Academic Inventors as % of total
professors
10
8
6
4.2
3.9
3.9
Sweden
Italy
France
4
2
0
Patent Value
Lissoni et al. 2008
Research nature and patent value
 Basic vs Applied Research
Academic
Inventors
Basic
Research
Applied
Research
Academic patents – higher longterm value
Firms
Focus on short-term returns
University-Industry Collaboration
Academic
Inventors
Academic
Patents
Firms
Inclination to
science based
patents
Involve academics
in patents leading
to immediate
returns
Long-term value
Short-term
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
University-Industry Collaboration
Type of
collaboration
Technology
Patent
Core technology patents
Non-core
patents
Non-core
patents
Core: high
resource
commitment by
firm, competitive
advantage to that
technology
Non-core
patents
Higher
patent
value
Non-core
patents
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
Technological
profile
Patent
value
Effect on academic patent’s value
Academic
inventor
Technological
profile
Patent value
Hypothesis 3
 Controlling for whether patents belong to the core
technologies of firms decreases the effect of academic
inventors on patent value
Data
Swedish inventor
PATSTAT-KITeS
1978-2009
Firm-owned
Swedish patents
Firm data
(Orbis, etc)
KEINS/APE-INV
Firm owned academic and
non academic patents
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
Academic
Inventors
• Binary 1/0
• 1 if at least one academic inventor
• 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
Average citations/patent by age
6
5
Citations/patent
4
3
Non-Academic
Academic
2
1
0
0
5
10
15
Patent Age in Years
20
25
Descriptive statistics
Table 3. Forward patent citations (FPCs) by inventorship: Mean citations per patent.
Non-academic patents
Academic patents
Difference %
z-test P >
|z|
Short-term
0.93
0.82
-11.83*
0.0860
Long-term
1.37
1.48
8.03
0.2453
Total
2.30
2.30
0
0.9682
Econometric results
Academic
inventor
Short-term citations
(1)
(2)
FPC<3
FPC<3
+Core
-0.193***
-0.137*
Long-term citations
(3)
(4)
FPC>3
FPC>3
+Core
-0.139**
-0.0791
-0.140**
(0.0722)
(0.0581)
(0.0557)
Core technology
(0.0720)
0.420***
(0.0584)
0.431***
Total
(5)
FPC
(6)
FPC
+Core
-0.0888
(0.0557)
0.405***
#IPC classes
0.0334***
(0.00756)
0.258***
(0.0357)
0.0763***
(0.0106)
0.147***
(0.0322)
0.0368***
(0.00726)
0.250***
(0.0353)
0.0711***
(0.0105)
0.161***
0.0188***
(0.00629)
0.121***
(0.0361)
0.0674***
(0.0107)
0.135***
(0.0320)
0.0222***
(0.00626)
0.112***
(0.0361)
0.0610***
(0.0107)
0.152***
0.0216***
(0.00535)
0.190***
(0.0302)
0.0725***
(0.00904)
0.136***
(0.0273)
0.0252***
(0.00525)
0.182***
(0.0301)
0.0671***
(0.00901)
0.151***
Firm dummies
(0.0139)
included***
(0.0140)
included***
(0.0128)
included***
(0.0129)
included***
(0.0113)
included***
(0.0113)
included***
Priority year
included***
included***
included***
included***
included***
included***
OST7
included***
included**
included***
included**
included***
included***
BPC
NPR
#Inventors
Constant
Observations
-0.940***
(0.167)
16,053
-1.217***
(0.172)
16,053
Negative Binomial regressions
0.835***
(0.128)
16,053
0.578***
(0.130)
16,053
0.943***
(0.118)
16,053
0.692***
(0.118)
16,053
Econometric results
Shortterm
value
Academic
Inventor
-0.193***
Shortterm
value
Academic
Inventor
Core
-0.137*
0.420***
Econometric results
Longterm
value
Academic
Inventor
-0.139**
Longterm
value
Academic
Inventor
Core
-0.0791
0.431***
Econometric results
Patent
value
Academic
Inventor
-0.140**
Patent
value
Academic
Inventor
-0.0888
Core
0.405***
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?