How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry?
New Survey Evidence from France
Part I /
Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based
Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
Part II /
John Gabriel GODDARD
IMRI (Université Paris-Dauphine)
<[email protected]>
Marc ISABELLE
IMRI (Université Paris-Dauphine) & CEA
<[email protected]>
DRUID Summer Conference
June 18th, 2006
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006
1
How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry?
New Survey Evidence from France
Part I /
Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based
Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
Part II /
 Outline of the presentation

Introduction
– Public research and industry: the context
– PROs’ patents and licenses: the visible part of the iceberg?


Overview
– The survey
– The sample
– The collaborations
Results
– Part I
– Part II
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006

Conclusions and perspectives

References
2
How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry?
New Survey Evidence from France
Part I /
Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based
Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
Part II /
 Public research and industry: the context

Shift since 1980s, first experienced in US (Bayh-Dole act)
– more collaboration between public research and firms
– increase in patent filing by public research organisations
– increase in licensing agreements from PROs to firms
 double purpose =
– speed the innovation rate in the economy
– increase leveraging of resources from their activities by PROs

In France, loi de 1999
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006
3
How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry?
New Survey Evidence from France
Part I /
Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based
Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
Part II /
 PROs’ patents and licenses: the visible part of the iceberg?

Most survey-based studies focus on PROs’ patenting and licensing activities
(Thursby et al., 2001; Thursby & Thursby, 2003)
– fit with linear model
– involve codified knowledge
– transfer embodied technologies

Very few address the issue of other channels of K&T transfer to firms (Cohen et al.
work with Carnegie-Mellon survey, Levin et al. with Yale survey)
– two-way interactions
– involve tacit knowledge
– technologies issued from PROs are embryonic

Possible reasons for this bias =
– substantive:
patented inventions expected to be commercially useful
– methodological:
extensive record of information / databases associated
with patents
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006
4
How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry?
New Survey Evidence from France
Part I /
Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based
Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
Part II /
 The survey

Focus on IP issues (protection of intangible assets, transmission / diffusion of
knowledge)

Targeted on public research labs

Questionnaire sent to 1800 lab directors

1st semester, 2004
Large French government labs (CNRS, CEA, INRA, INSERM, INRIA, Institut
Pasteur, Institut Curie)

Selected S&T fields: chemistry, life sciences, ICT

Questionnaire similar to Cohen et al. (1994)

NB: information about the collaboration portfolio of public labs, NOT about
collaborations themselves
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006
5
How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry?
New Survey Evidence from France
Part I /
Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based
Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
Part II /
 The sample

146 responses
 size
number=146
 PROs
130 labs have collaborations with firms
 7,200 personnel
wide variation, long tail (4 megalabs over 250 pers.)
 fairly representative of PROs’ size (except INSERM)
number=146
 S&T fields
 life sciences dominant, ICT marginal
number=146
 region
number=146
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006
 dominance of IDF, probable bias in favour of PACA
(many chemistry labs of CEA there)
6
How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry?
New Survey Evidence from France
Part I /
Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based
Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
Part II /
 The collaborations

874 collaborations of every nature
 number of partners
(6,9 per lab on average)
 weak correlation with size
number=130
 localisation of partners
 mostly national, significant regional drive
number=874
 duration of collaborations
 predominantly long-term
number=130
 location of collaborative work
 essentially done in public-lab (87%)
number=130
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006
7
How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry?
New Survey Evidence from France
Part I /
 Probing into the invisible part of the iceberg

14 pre-identified modalities of collaboration

Answers on a 4-point scale

Distribution of responses for each modality
number=130
Interpretation
– IP-related K&T transfer through license agreements at a distant 2nd place
– prevalence of informal / knowledge-targeted / two-way modalities
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006
8
How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry?
New Survey Evidence from France
Part I /
 Extra resources are effectively leveraged

9 pre-identified benefits of collaboration for the public lab

Answers on a 4-point scale

“Significant” + “Decisive”  “Yes”

Rate of “Yes” for each benefit
number=130
Interpretation
– development of technology transfer activities again at a distant 2nd place
(and mobility towards industry)
– perceived benefits closely connected to tangible / intangible inputs obtained
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006
9
How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry?
New Survey Evidence from France
Part I /
 Traditional outcomes outstrip IP-related ones

14 pre-identified outcomes of collaboration

Answers on a 4-point scale

“Frequent” + “Very frequent”  “Yes”

Rate of “Yes” for each outcome
number=130
Interpretation
– patents & copyrights, licenses of all types 2 to 3 times less frequent than
publications or theses…
– … related to dominance of research-type modalities
– however, embodied technologies (new products & processes + software) as
frequent as publications
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006
10
How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry?
New Survey Evidence from France
Part I /
 Labs’ activities significantly impacted by collaborations


Significant impact on research programmes and themes
Impact on research style
(rate of “Significant” + “Decisive” = 58%)
number=130
answers on a 3-point scale
number=130

Impact on research practices
7 pre-identified practices
answers on a 4-point scale
“Significant” + “Decisive”  “Yes”
number=130
Interpretation
– firms’ preferences shape collaborative labs’ activities
– stands out against secondary importance of IP- and technology-related
modalities / benefits / outcomes?
– exposure to skewing problem (Florida & Cohen, 1999)
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006
11
Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based
Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
Part II /
 Balanced allocation of IP stemming from collaboration

4 pre-identified ways of allocating IP

Answers on a 4-point scale

“Frequent” + “Very frequent”  “Yes”

Rate of “Yes” for each allocation
number=130
Interpretation
– joint ownership as frequent as separate ownership…
– 40% of the labs interact under several ownership rules  flexibility, but in
response to what?
– possible correlation with the modalities of collaboration (ex. technical
assistance tends to be associated with exclusive ownership of the firm)
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006
12
Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based
Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
Part II /
 Firms gain various legal rights over collaborative results

10 pre-identified legal mechanisms for results’ appropriation by firms

Answers on a 4-point scale

“Frequent” + “Very frequent”  “Yes”

Rate of “Yes” for each mechanism
number=130
Interpretation
– confidentiality and patents dominate: ex ante / ex post complements?
– possible correlation with S&T field (ex. much confidentiality but no patents
in brain-related research and nuclear research)
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006
13
Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based
Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
Part II /
 Tight information control ex ante and ex post

Contractual right to suppress specific information before publication  52% of labs

Actual suppression of information in publications  26% of labs

Secrecy over all of the results  25% of labs
Interpretation
– stronger contractual information control than in prior survey (52% vs. 35%
for Cohen et al., 1994)
– 2,0 x more actual suppressions in chemistry than in life sciences (significan-ce to be tested…)
– occasional suppressions while not specified in the contract
– right to suppress information often associated with contractual provisions
for publication delay (32% of labs  31% for Cohen et al.)
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006
14
Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based
Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
Part II /
 Publication delays: widespread but not too worrying

Contractual provision for publication delay  55% of labs

Delay > 6 months in about half cases

Delay not harmful or only marginally so for 78% of labs
Interpretation
– consistent with prior survey results (55%  53% for Cohen et al.)
– delays 1,6 x more harmful in life sciences than in chemistry (significance to
be tested…)
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006
15
Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based
Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
Part II /
 Pervasive limitations concerning scientific communication

4 pre-identified levels of barriers to scientific communication

Answers on a 4-point scale

“Frequent” + “Very frequent”  “Yes”

Rate of “Yes” for each level
number=130
Interpretation
– Firms build tight fences around knowledge because it spills over so easily –
from possible competitors up to the larger public
– limitations harmful to the cumulative process of S&T knowledge building
(barriers with public research organisations)
– natural locus of S&T production torn apart in the case of limitations towards
colleagues in the same lab (8% of labs)
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006
16
Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based
Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
Part II /
 IP as a source of (short-lived) conflict between partners

Conflict or discord with a partner about IP issues in 2003  15% of labs

Mostly big labs

Disputes had been resolved in 2004
(median = 60 employees vs. 28 for the sample)
with many partners
(i.e. by the time of the survey)
(median = 6 vs. 4)
for 74% of labs
Interpretation
– many disputes between supposedly “collaborating” partners… but rapidly
settled for the most part
– possibly because of strong incompleteness of R&D contracts
– probabilistic effect (more partnerships  more conflicts) seems to prevail over capacity
effect (more effective management of collaborations by big labs)
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006
17
Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based
Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
Part II /
 Public labs protect their intellectual assets through distinctive
strategies

6 pre-identified mechanisms of intellectual assets protection by labs

Answers on a 4-point scale

“Frequent” + “Very frequent”  “Yes”

Rate of “Yes” for each mechanism
number=130
Interpretation
– multiple protection is a common strategy (71% of labs)
– prevalence of contractual protection mechanisms
– patents and secrecy (firms’ preferred mechanisms) at a distant second
place… although not marginal
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006
18
How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry?
New Survey Evidence from France
Part I /
Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based
Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
Part II /
 Conclusions and perspectives




Collaborations with firms allow public labs to leverage additional resources and
thereby to increase their scientific output
… but they must be carefully managed to avoid negative consequences on
knowledge circulation and diffusion
Technology management in this context is only of limited use: most technologies
are embryonic, calling for two-way interactions and tacit knowledge transfer
Public labs are already implementing distinctive strategies to protect their
intellectual assets (as compared to firms)

Perform in-depth comparison with Cohen et al., 1994

Identification of cluster effects

Regression analysis

THANK YOU!
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006
19
How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry?
New Survey Evidence from France
Part I /
Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based
Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
Part II /
 References









Agrawal A., (2001), “University-to-industry knowledge transfer: literature review and unanswered questions”,
International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 285-302.
Cohen W.M., Florida R., Goe R., (1994), “University-Industry Research Centers in the United States”, Report to
the Ford Foundation, Mimeo, Carnegie Mellon University.
Cohen W.M., Florida R., Randazzese L., Walsh J., (1998), “Industry and the Academy: Uneasy Partners in the
Cause of Technological Advance”, in Roger Noll (ed.), Challenge to the Research University, Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution.
Cohen W.M., Nelson R.R., Walsh J., (2002), “Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial
R&D”, Management Science, 48, 1-23.
Henderson R., Jaffe A.B., Trajtenberg M., (1998), “Universities as a Source of Commercial Technology: A
Detailed Analysis of University Patenting, 1965–1988”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 80, 119-27.
Jaffe, A. (1989), “Real Effects of Academic Research”, American Economic Review, 79, 957-70.
Mowery D.C., Sampat B.N., (2005), “The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University–Industry Technology Transfer: A
Model for Other OECD Governments?”, Journal of Technology Transfer, 30, 115-27.
Thursby J.G., Jensen R., Thursby M.C., (2001), “Objectives, Characteristics and Outcomes of University
Licensing: A Survey of Major U.S. Universities”, Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 59-72.
Thursby J.G., Thursby M.C., (2003), “Industry/University Licensing: Characteristics, Concerns and Issues from
the Perspective of the Buyer”, Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 207-13.
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006
20