Technological and commercial evaluation of university patents based on the identification of commercial opportunities in technology transfer
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29059/cienciauat.v17i1.1597Keywords:
evaluation, viability, patents, commercialization, technology transferAbstract
Given the transition to entrepreneurial universities, there is a tendency to increase patenting, although without a deep study of the commercial potential. Therefore, the percentage of those developments that succeed is very low. The objective of this research was to develop a strategy for the technological and commercial evaluation of university patents, based on the identification of commercial opportunities in technology transfer (TT). Patent applications from the Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla (BUAP) and the Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos (UAEM) were used for the study. The methodology consisted of the analysis of 269 patent applications in a period of 10 years 2009-2018, in accordance with the statistical International Patent Classification (IPC), through 4 steps: (a) construction of the patent database, with the use of the patent tool of the Mexican Institute of Intellectual Property, (b) identification of inventive capabilities, through the World Intellectual Property Organization, (c) distribution by industries of intensity and technological market opportunity, with the tool of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and (d) analysis of market behavior, through the study of the 36 applications of the pharmaceutical patent area, from both universities. The results showed that 68.4 % of BUAP and 75.6 % of UAEM reflected a predominantly competitive positioning in high technology and medium-high technology industries. The advantage of the proposed tool is that it allows the recognition of the technological market opportunity based on the construction of scenarios related to the IPC behavior.
References
Banerjee, A., Rajdeep, B., and Sanyal, M. K. (2017). Valuation of patent: A classification of methodologies. Research Bulletin. 42(4): 158-174.
Burstein, M. J. (2015). Patent markets: a framework for evaluation. Arizona State Law Journal. 47: 507-542.
Chen, N., Liu, Y., Cheng, Y., Liu, L., Yan, Z., Tao, L., …, and Yan, A. (2015). Technology Resource, Distribution, and Development Characteristics of Global Influenza Virus Vaccine: A Patent Bibliometric Analysis. PLoS One. 10(9): 1-19.
Choi, J., Jeong, B., Yoon, J., Coh, B. Y., and Lee, J. M. (2020). A novel approach to evaluating the business potential of intellectual properties: A machine learning-based predictive analysis of patent lifetime. Computers & Industrial Engineering. 145(106544): 1-13.
Dehghani, M., Khosropour, H., Khosravanian, A., Mirafshar, M., Azaribeni, A., Rezapour, M., and Nouri, B. (2016). Patent-based technology life cycle analysis: the case of the petroleum industry. Foresight and STI Governance. 10(4): 72-79.
Elvers, D., Hoon-Song, C., Steinbüchel, A., and Leker, J. (2016). Technology Trends in Biodegradable Polymers: Evidence from Patent Analysis. Polymer Reviews. 56(4): 584-606.
FINNOVA, Fondo Sectorial de Innovación (2013). Oficinas de Transferencia de Tecnología, México. [En línea]. Disponible en: https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/6677/177265_U_AUT._MORELOS.pdf. Fecha de consulta: 9 de marzo de 2022.
Fischer, T. and Leidinger, J. (2014). Testing patent value indicators on directly observed patent value—An empirical analysis of Ocean Tomo patent auctions. Research Policy. 43(3): 519-529.
García-Galván, R. (2017). Patenting and innovation in Mexico, a developing country: Theory and politics. Revista de la Educación Superior. 46(184): 77-97.
INEGI, Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (2021). Obtenido de Clasificación Internacional de Patentes. [En línea]. Disponible en: https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/app/scian/cip.pdf. Fecha de consulta: 14 de febrero de 2022.
Mago, M. and Deshpande, N. (2018). Patent data for comparative study: case study of top aspirants in bioinformatics industry. International Journal of Innovation. 6(1): 33-39.
Mao, K. (2020). Research on key technology analysis and system design of enterprise patent management system. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems. 38(2): 1319-1328.
Materne, A., Sleightholme, G., and Clarke, N. (2019). Beyond patent families. World Patent Information. 59 (101928).
Obayashi, M. and Yamada, S. (2009). Evaluation of SMEs innovativeness using patent stock variables. International Journal of Business and Management Science. 1(2): 221-229.
OCDE, Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos (2011). Technology intensity definition, classification of manufacturing industries into categories based on R&D intensities. París: Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. 5 Pp.
Og, J. Y., Pawelec, K., Kim, B. K., Paprocki, R., and Jeong, E. S. (2020). Measuring patent value indicators with patent renewal information. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. 6(16): 1-16.
Ono, Y. and Sekozawa, T. (2016). Evaluation of patent race between three firms using a game-theoretic real options approach. Electronics and Communications in Japan. 99(7): 204-214.
Questel (2022). Orbit Innovation. [En línea]. Disponible en: https://www.orbit.com/. Fecha de consulta: 14 de febrero de 2022.
Rectoría BUAP (2017). Plan de Desarrollo Institucional (PID) 2017-2021. [En línea]. Disponible en: https://repositorio.buap.mx/rcontraloria/public/inf_public/2019/0/5_Plan_de_Desarrollo_Institucional_BUAP_2017-2021.pdf. Fecha de consulta: 1 de abril de 2021.
Rectoría UAEM (2018). Plan Institucional de Desarrollo (PIDE) 2018-2023. [En línea]. Disponible en: http://pide.uaem.mx/assets/PIDE_2018-2023.pdf. Fecha de consulta: 1 de abril de 2021.
Reyes-Álvarez, J. and Sánchez-Daza, G. (2018). Patents and institutions of higher education in Mexico. Economía Informa. 36-50.
Santos-Leite, R. A., Gomes, I. M., Russo, S. L., and Walter, C. C. (2019). Portfolio evaluation of academic patent: a proposal to Brazil. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation. 14(4): 66-77.
Solís-Lima, A., Ovando, C., Olivera-Perez, E. y Rodriguez-Lozada, M. (2020). Desempeño de una Oficina de Transferencia de Tecnología en el context de gestion de patentes: Estudio de caso de la OTT de la Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla. Nova Sientia. 12(24).
Song, Y., Wen, S., Li, W., Yang, L., and He, Y. (2019). Evaluation of a Patent value based on AHP fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 1345: 022023.
Villafaña-Diaz, L. G. y Lezama-de-la-Rosa, M. A. (2020). Revisión de literatura en comercialización y transferencia de tecnología en la industria 4.0. Journal of Technological Prototypes. 6(18): 1-9.
WIPO, World Intellectual Property Organization (2009). IPC Technology Concordance. WIPO Statistics Database. 1-15.
WIPO, World Intellectual Property Organization (2022). Patentscope. [En línea]. Disponible en: https:
//patentscope.wipo.int/search/es/structuredSearch.jsf. Fecha de consulta: 14 de febrero de 2022.
Yoo, S. and Dong-kyu, W. (2006). A study on estimation of technology life span using analysis of patent citation. Journal of the Korean Operations Research and Management Science Society. 31(4): 1-11.
Zhang, L. and Liu, Z. (2020). Research on technology prospect risk of high tech projects based on patent analysis. PLoS One. 15(19) 1-19.
Zhang, Y., Shang, L., Huang, L., Porter, A. L., Zhang, G., Lu, J., and Zhu, D. (2016). A hybrid similarity measure method for patent portfolio analysis. Journal of Informetrics. 10(4): 1108-1130.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
