Two studies released on the innovation potential of Europe’s universities

A Grace Period for Patents:  Could it Help European Universities Innovate? reveals that European technology transfer managers strongly favour an EU grace period for patents, saying it would remove a significant disadvantage for university inventors, increase patent activity on campus and support innovation. The study is based on a survey of European technology transfer offices about patent practice and perceptions.   

Europe’s technology transfer managers agreed 2-to-1 that a grace period is needed, according to the survey, and more than half say they often feel at risk for losing patent opportunities due to premature disclosure of an invention.

Many of the world’s most innovative economies, including the US, Japan and South Korea, provide inventors with a legal “grace period” – time to file a patent after discussing an invention in public.  The US grace period is 12 months. In 2012, South Korea, which ranks No. 4 globally in patents, extended its grace period from six months to 12 months. Other countries with a grace period include Australia, Brazil, Canada and nearly all of Latin America.

The lack of a meaningful grace period in Europe creates a dilemma for European researchers. To keep their academic careers on track, they must publish the results of their work as quickly as possible and present scientific breakthroughs at scholarly conferences. But to reap the benefits of possible commercial applications for themselves and their universities, they must remain silent until a patent is filed. Grace periods allow academics to protect their inventions while continuing to advance their careers.

The drive to harmonise international patent systems has prompted the world’s five largest patent offices, representing Europe (EPO), the US (USPTO), Japan (JPO), South Korea (KIPO) and China (SIPO), to add a grace period study to their a 2012 programme of joint research.

The study did not systematically survey the views of the private sector, which was divided on the question and for which a grace period is a more complex question.  Those opposed to a grace period argue it will increase legal uncertainty, leading to more frequent court disputes.  The Innovation Board urged policy makers to further study the attitudes of businesses both large and small.

The second study – Inside the Mind of European Academic Entrepreneurs: Perceptions of ACES finalists about the process of science entrepreneurship – was carried out in collaboration with the INSEAD Science Entrepreneurship Initiative. It studied the factors that impact the growth and success of young entrepreneurial technology companies in Europe.

The study sought to understand why European science-based ventures have difficulty in scaling up.  It found sharp differences in the motivations of science entrepreneurs, who were driven to advance science, and business entrepreneurs, whose primary motivation was economic success. “Science ventures are hybrid organisations,” which operate under the very different logics of academia and business, says the study. Few academic entrepreneurs seem driven by financial reward, for example, and few understand business models or can clearly articulate their value proposition. “Yet they are very good at leveraging university resources and competences,” the study says.

Those sharply diverging mindsets have an impact on everything from attitudes towards customers and commercial integration to the role of the university for start-ups.  Business entrepreneurs interviewed did not consider that universities play any significant long-term role in helping start-ups to flourish, whereas academic entrepreneurs viewed the university as important in multiple ways – including for the development of proofs of concept. Winning university competitions was seen as important validation that provided good publicity as well as access to investors and seed money.

Noting the differences between founders and CEOs with purely academic backgrounds and those with business experience, the study draws policy recommendations, particularly for patent policy and investors.  Training in business building and entrepreneurship, for example, are particularly important for academic entrepreneurs so they can better handle organisational challenges, the study concluded.

The INSEAD team was led by Rolf Hoefer, Bill Magill and Filipe Santos, and was based on interviews with the founders or CEOs of 28 European science start-ups from the Science Business Academic Enterprise Awards (ACES) programme.

The Science|Business Innovation Board is a not-for profit scientific association that performs original research on EU innovation policy, organises conferences on innovation policy, and runs the annual Academic Enterprise Awards to recognise Europe’s top university entrepreneurs. Members include Imperial College London, Microsoft, ESADE, BP, Aalto University, SKF, INSEAD, GE and Science|Business, a Brussels- and London-based media and communications company. The Board’s recent research has included studies of open innovation, start-up investment, university governance, university-industry relations and high-growth entrepreneurship across Europe.

The Board met on 4 June in the European Parliament for its annual Academic Enterprise Awards and conference. For further information on the event: www.sciencebusiness.net/aces.