Abstract:

Firms can rely on different instruments of intellectual property protection to secure the appropriability of economic returns from innovation activity. Such instruments, such as patents or trademarks, offer a certain degree of protection against imitation, spillover and undesired loss of knowledge and, at the same time, provide a means of deriving economic benefits from the commercialisation of the product of innovation [1]. Specifically, a patent is a legal protection by which the inventor of a new product or process receives, in a territory and for a well-defined period, the exclusive right to use or produce it [2].Therefore, the primary objective of the patent is to provide incentives for companies to invest in R&D by guaranteeing them the appropriability of the innovation results.

It must inevitably be related to the increasing tendency of companies to adopt Open Innovation (OI) practices, i.e. to exploit sources external to the organisation to innovate. In fact, it implies an increased capacity to generate innovation, but at the same time involves the collaboration of different stakeholders to the innovation process [3]. As pointed out by Chesbrough [4], it gives rise to a paradox: while firms need to make their boundaries porous in order to draw from external knowledge in order to produce innovation, this should not undermine the economic returns from the subsequent commercialisation of such innovative ideas.

It follows that the need to appropriate the results of innovation through intellectual property protection mechanisms, such as patents, becomes compelling. This necessity, however, is not limited to companies: universities, which have become increasingly important in innovation ecosystems in recent years, also feel the same need [5]. In particular, when studying the mechanism of patents within universities, a second paradox emerges since they fall within two incentive systems, normally considered as alternatives to each other: patronage and property rights [6].
In this regard, the aim of this article is to gain further insight into the patenting activities of universities in an open innovation context. The research has been conducted by means of a literature review of contributions published on the Scopus database, carried out through the VOSviewer software.

References:
[1] J. Pénin and D. Neicu, “Patents and open innovation: Bad fences do not make good neighbors,” Journal of Innovation Economics Management, no. 1, pp. 57–85, 2018.
[2] B. H. Hall, “Patents, innovation, and development,” International Review of Applied Economics, pp. 1–26, 2022.
[3] G. D. Lauritzen and M. Karafyllia, “Perspective: leveraging open innovation through paradox,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 107–121, 2019.
[4] H. Chesbrough, “The era of open innovation MIT Sloan Management Review,” Spring, pp. 35–36, 2003.
[5] Y. Cai and H. Etzkowitz, “Theorizing the Triple Helix model: Past, present, and future,” Triple Helix, vol. 7, no. 2–3, pp. 189–226, 2020.
[6] B. Verspagen, “University research, intellectual property rights and European innovation systems,” Journal of Economic surveys, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 607–632, 2006.

Keywords:

Open innovation, university, university-industry collaboration, patents, review.