University Patents Neg - GDI 2024

Notes
Neg strategy notes:
In addition to the case cards, cap links and CPs included in this file, you can make link args to other neg positions you have access to now.
A lot of those negative positions are premised on increasing patents - and to some degree, the university ownership aff internal links are premised on the idea that individual researchers would also get more patents.
Those other files include:
Pharma DA - although the 1nc is specific to indigenous aff, there are generic patent links in the backup you could repurpose.
Elections
China bashing - to the degree that China is trying to compete through some of their own university patents, this probably links
Court clog/USPTO - increased number and clarification about whether owner is university or individuals link args
Inherency
Universities = Small Potatoes
Universities don't own the majority of academic patents.
Van Burg, Professor Amsterdam Business Research Institute, et al., 21
[Elco, Jingshu Du, Shandong University, Jannigje Gerdien Kers, Wageningen University and Research, Technovation Volume 107, ScienceDirect, “When do academics patent outside their university? An in-depth case study?,” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497221000687?via%3Dihub, 7-17-24, GDI – Tom Huynh]
Yet, one issue that prevents to develop a clear picture of academic patenting is that many patents produced by academics are not patented under the name of a university (Geuna and Nesta 2006; Lissoni et al., 2013; Thursby et al., 2009; Verspagen 2006) and the institutional affiliation of inventors is often not accurately acknowledged (Murray 2002). As a result, it is estimated that 60–80% of academic patents are not university-owned patents (i.e., patents that are owned or co-owned by a university) (Lissoni et al. 2008, 2009). Such non-university-owned patents that are based on university inventions are commonly referred to as university-invented patents (cf. Crespi et al., 2010; Czarnitzki et al., 2012). Thus, even patents that acknowledge only a commercial institution might actually have an academic origin.
Inventors Circumvent UOM
Researchers bypass TTOs to get patents
Simon, Professor of Law, California Western, 2021
[Brenda M. "Preserving the Fruits of Labor: Impediments to University Inventor Mobility," Tennessee Law Review 89, no. 1 (Fall 2021): 1-66 heinonline gdi-tm]
The employer-university typically has a superior ownership interest in inventors' intellectual property and other invention­ related materials by virtue of employment and other agreements.163 The Bayh-Dole Act allows patents resulting from federally-funded research to be assigned to universities. 164 Some faculty inventors, however, circumvent university procedures requiring coordination with the university's technology transfer office (TTO) and apply for patents on their own.165 One study found that over 42% of university inventors who obtained patents bypassed their university's TTO at least once.166 Other university inventors have launched firms without obtaining university licenses, or they have entered into financially beneficial relationships with firms aligned with their research, effectively creating a "gray market" for inventions.167
Despite entering into agreements and contracts that vest ownership in invention-related materials with the university­ employer, some inventors may not fully appreciate that items incorporating their personal reflections and a career's worth of data and effort are within the university-employer's ownership realm.168 Items such as laboratory notebooks, data, and raw materials may capture the inventor's thoughts and expression. 169 In addition, institutional norms with regard to academic research impose responsibility on university scientists to protect the data arising from both external and internal sources.17 For example, funding agencies • typically expect principal investigators to exercise responsibility over the management of data.171 In the process of publication, inventors are generally required to follow rules about providing access to data to ensure reproducibility.172 Perhaps these requirements lead some inventors to conclude, mistakenly, that with great responsibility comes great power.173
Researchers also file outside of TTOs- not key
Van Burg, Professor Amsterdam Business Research Institute, et al., 21
[Elco, Jingshu Du, Shandong University, Jannigje Gerdien Kers, Wageningen University and Research, Technovation Volume 107, ScienceDirect, “When do academics patent outside their university? An in-depth case study?,” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497221000687?via%3Dihub, 7-17-24, GDI – Tom Huynh]
*TTOs – technology transfer office
Focusing on university infrastructure, multiple researchers have looked into the effect of TTOs on patenting behavior in universities (see for a review of TTO literature Hayter et al., 2018; Huyghe et al., 2016). TTO experience and TTO size are related to the number of patents filed and licensed by a university (Carlsson and Fridh 2002; Zhou and Tang 2020) and these factors are sometimes also associated with the revenue generated by these patents (e.g., Kolympiris and Klein 2017; Markman et al., 2005). In general, researchers who receive support from their TTO are more likely to file a patent (Sellenthin 2009). Yet, even though the presence of a TTO appears to influence university-ownership of patents (Sterzi et al., 2019), in particular in the case of more autonomous TTOs (Markman et al., 2008), it is clear that not all researchers patent via their research institute's TTOs, for multiple reasons. These reasons include unawareness of the TTO (Huyghe et al., 2016), perceived unwillingness or ineffectiveness of the TTO to patent their finding (Aldridge and Audretsch 2010; O'Kane 2018), and overt opportunism in that researchers can gain more by patenting without TTO (and university) involvement (Gianiodis et al., 2016).
Patent type matters – universities have only basic research patent – if short term valuable, researchers file outside the university
Van Burg, Professor Amsterdam Business Research Institute, et al., 21
[Elco, Jingshu Du, Shandong University, Jannigje Gerdien Kers, Wageningen University and Research, Technovation Volume 107, ScienceDirect, “When do academics patent outside their university? An in-depth case study?,” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497221000687?via%3Dihub, 7-17-24, GDI – Tom Huynh]
Finally, studies have looked into how patent characteristics influence university-ownership of these patents. An obvious argument is that patents that are the result of company-funded research are more likely to be owned by companies (Belderbos et al., 2014). Nevertheless, there is no clear effect of such collaboration on the assignment of the patent ownership, except for the case of university spin-off firms and other forms of entrepreneurial collaboration (Gianiodis et al., 2016; Lawson 2013; Markman et al., 2008). Importantly, some studies have found that the (expected) short-term value of patents is related to the tendency to file patents outside the university (Aldridge and Audretsch 2010; Gianiodis et al., 2016; Markman et al., 2008), while more basic or fundamental patents, with later forward cites are more likely to be assigned to universities (Czarnitzki et al., 2012; Sterzi 2013; Thursby et al., 2009). Overall, patent characteristics may influence the decision-making of individuals, companies, and universities.
Senior researchers just bypass TTOs – means no tradeoff with tech development
Ouellette, Senior Fellow Stanford Law School & Tutt, Counsel Arnold & Porter, 19
[Lisa & Andrew, “How do patent incentives affect university researchers?,” International Review of Law and Economics Volume 61, Elsevier, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818819302522?via%3Dihub, 7-16-24, GDI – Tom Huynh]
*TTO = technology transfer office
Thus, interview data suggest that, in the past, patenting was not well supported or even considered at the university, and therefore regularly patents were given away to companies. The establishment of the TTO, probably in line with an overall trend to be more focused on university IP, impacted the current preference for contract research, which is that the patent should be assigned to both the university and the company. Yet, despite this preferential IP strategy, interviewees acknowledge that there are also cases in which inventors willingly bypass the TTO, as one department head stated: “Sometimes I overhear researchers saying: If I go to TTO, I will … lose part of my autonomy … but also part of my money, as a major part does not go to me but to TTO.” At the same time, as a TTO manager admits, sometimes inventors or companies get the possibility to own university IP: “In several cases, we have granted the inventor the patent, as a deliberate choice. At the same time, it is not the preferred option as it could give an incentive to underestimate the value of the invention or to reduced collaboration [with TTO].”
In Model 3, the variable Academic rank is added to the regression. Some of our analysis results confirm the negative effect3 of academic rank on university ownership of the academic patent, which partially supports Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2 stated that the higher the academic rank of the (lead-)inventor, the more likely he/she will file the patent outside the university. The interview data shed more light on these highly-ranked individuals who bypass the university system. First, some professors admit that they have granted companies the right to patent their inventions, because it was too cumbersome to deal with the patenting procedure at the university or because the company paid for the patent or the research that led to the patent. As one professor stated: “We have sold these [patents] to the industry. … An external partner has written the patents, we delivered the content, but patent specialists of these companies filed the patents.” Another interviewee stated: “When I consider the TTO, they do things too broadly and as a result lack sufficient expertise to say for each domain: you can patent this, and you can't do that. The university is so broad and diversified, it is nearly impossible to do that, and that requires experts on those positions. It may be possible with help from externals, but hiring an external expert is very expensive.” Thus, it seems that higher-ranked researchers feel relatively at ease with giving critique to the university service and with bypassing the institutional rules.
SQ TTOs => Innovation
TTOs increase innovation and dissemination of tech
Civera et al, Researcher at the University of Bergamo, 20
[Alice, “Engagement of academics in university technology transfer: Opportunity and necessity academic entrepreneurship”, European Economic Review, Vol. 123, Elsevier, Accessed 7/17, GDI-IM]
University spinoffs are a well-accepted vehicle for the dissemination and commercialization of new knowledge and a wide range of policies have been recommended and implemented to encourage their formation in hopes of spurring inno- vation and local economic development (Shane, 2004). Indeed, according to the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneur- ship, they result fundamental for the development of the regions where they are located (Acs et al., 2013).
To be effective policy needs to be targeted based on the rationales behind the academic spinoffs establishment. Policy goals usually do not correspond with the motives of enterprising individuals. Hardly anybody starts a business in order to achieve innovation, job creation, or economic growth at the national level. Instead, people desire personal profits, or autonomy, amongst others, or are just forced into entrepreneurship because they have no other options (Shane et al., 2003).
Still, the type of individual entrepreneurial motivation may determine the goals and aspirations of the firm, which in turn may determine macroeconomic outcomes. In either case, it is vital for policy-makers to know what factors within their sphere of influence correlate with individual entrepreneurial motivation (Hessels et al., 2008).
TTOs have always been one of the preferred channels policymakers have encouraged as testified by the US Bayh–Dole Act of 1980 and its European counterparts. Yet, its function varies according to the rationale for spinning out new companies. Specifically, the role of the TTO in increasing the entrepreneurial activities of academics appears to be related to the simpli- fication of the process of innovation commercialization and diffusion, while TTOs support in terms of coaching, and training activity result essential for those academics who start a new business as a second-best solution. These considerations help to shed light on the mixed literature concerning the effectiveness of TTOs, by arguing that it depends on the orientation of academic spinoffs – either opportunity or necessity oriented.
Accordingly, some implications can be derived. In particular, whether TTOs adopt best practices or not in enhancing the commercialization of research results is related to the nature of the academic spinoffs. In case of opportunity en- trepreneurial activities, the university’s potential for commercializing its research results depend on its ability to attract and retain academics able to recognize the market opportunity. Vice versa, the strategy of universities to created TTOs of considerable size and scope, may translate in a fundamental mechanism for necessity-oriented academic spinoffs in order to survive.
TTOs key to academic spinoffs – promotes disclosure and diffusion
Civera et al, Researcher at the University of Bergamo, 20
[Alice, “Engagement of academics in university technology transfer: Opportunity and necessity academic entrepreneurship”, European Economic Review, 123, Elsevier, Accessed 7/16, GDI-IM]
In turn, the rationale behind starting a new business is strongly related to the context (Audretsch et al., 2015; Casson, 2005; Clarysse et al., 2005). In a more traditional context, where academic spinoffs are generated to exploitation a business opportunity, a successful commercialization strategy may be minimizing the cost of placing on the market the company’s innovation. It is thus a task of the spinning out university to ensure the best environment for the diffusion of the innovation. This has led to the creation of the Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs henceforth), with the specific aim of reducing costs associated with the process of innovation diffusion (Audretsch et al., 2014; Siegel et al., 2003). In a context instead, where academic spinoffs constitute a compensatory self-employment opportunity when academic inventors cannot find a stable position within the academia, TTOS play a more crucial role by providing individuals competencies, informa- tion, and in general resources they lack (Bercovitz and Feldman, 2008; Clarysse et al., 2011). Without TTOs’ supporting and coaching activities necessity academic spinoffs can hardly survive. Then, in the first case, TTOs are specifically arranged to stimulate invention disclosures among the researchers, to protect inventions from copying and assistance to researchers in the contractual part of their research. In the second case, they offer incubation services, which make it possible for aca- demics to set up their new business staying on their campus, as well as a variety of advice and coaching activities towards the academics and help in finding experienced managers from the industry to help support the new firm.
TTOs increase academic entrepreneurship
Civera et al, Researcher at the University of Bergamo, 20
[Alice, “Engagement of academics in university technology transfer: Opportunity and necessity academic entrepreneurship”, European Economic Review, 123, Elsevier, Accessed 7/16, GDI-IM]
The literature on academic entrepreneurship has mainly focused on how TTOs can foster academic entrepreneurship (Clarysse et al., 2005; Wright, 2007). Although there is scarce evidence of the direct impact of TTOs on the creation of spin-offs, TTOs have increased the entrepreneurial intent of academics (Meyer, 2003). Similarly, Bercovitz and Feld- man (2008) found that academics who were familiar with TTO activities were more likely to get involved in entrepreneurial activities as they learned the business norms and skills that are needed to be successful in commercializing research due to the supportive environment that TTOs were able to create. In fact, TTOs usually organize pre-seed capital to be invested in potential spin-offs (Clarysse and Bruneel, 2007). Academics, who want to start a new business, therefore have access to capital. In addition, they offer incubation services, which make it possible for academics to set up their new business stay- ing on their campus. They also offer a variety of advice and coaching activities towards the academics and help in finding experienced managers from the industry to help support the new firm (Clarysse et al., 2011).
This is why one could expect that entrepreneurial and non-entrepreneurial-oriented academics are differently affected by TTOs. Individuals with the skill to spot, recognize and absorb opportunities, has been put forward in the entrepreneurship literature as opportunity entrepreneurs (Buenstorf, 2007). Entrepreneurially driven individuals identify opportunities that might lead to new venture ideas that can be commercialized and show a general interest in pursuing these opportunities and/or ideas. The ability of a potential entrepreneur to identify and pursue opportunities is intimately linked to their tech- nological knowledge and/or knowledge about markets and customer needs (Buenstorf, 2007). Clarysse et al. (2011) explored how different characteristics in the technological knowledge base at start-up predict spin-off performance. They found that corporate spin-offs grow more if they start with a specific narrow-focused technology sufficiently distinct from the technical knowledge base of the parent company. University spin-offs benefit from a broad technology, which is transferred to the spin-off. This proves that the internal availability of technology is not the only one that academic spinoffs need. Indeed, spinoffs technological performances are directly correlated with those of the parent firm (Helfat and Lieberman, 2002). Universities play a key role as explained by O’Shea et al. (2005). A high-quality rating of a university’s science and engi- neering departments positively impacts the number of spinoff companies created. According to Powers (2003), one of the necessary conditions for the generation of start-ups from universities is the availability of scientists and engineers with suit- able qualifications and know-how in R&D activities. The availability of human capital implies higher skills and knowledge within a university, which is positive for the realization of technology transfer activity. Therefore, university spinoff activity is influenced by the availability of scientists and engineers with appropriate knowledge and inclination. The level of tech- nological advancement in the local areas is important as well. There is a well-developed stream of literature devoted to the entrepreneurial ecosystems and their key role in enhancing local entrepreneurial activity (e.g. Audretsch and Belitski, 2017; Feldman, 2014). In particular, spinoff activity is more likely to occur in high technology clusters because access to critical expertise, networks, and knowledge is readily available (Saxenian, 1994). Research has shown indeed that access to persons with expert knowledge and talent is a critical human capital resource for the development of cutting-edge technologies is (Powers and McDougall, 2005).
Solvency
UOM => Innovation
University innovations vital---numerous benefits including national security
Tyler, J.D. University of Notre Dame, 11
[Joh

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.