commercialization

This study estimates that of the $180.4 billion invested into R&D by U.S. industrial firms in 2000 as much as $13.2 billion or 7.3% was for ESTD activities targeted at bringing disruptive new technological innovations to the marketplace.

The author analyses a situation where a patent holder is considered as an upstream firm that can license its innovation to some downstream companies that compete on a final market with differentiated products. They show that a licence based on a royalty works better with vertical integration, and that consequently, the patent holder have some interest to vertically integrate if it enables him to apply a royalty based license.

This study investigates the effects of particular resource sets on two university commercialization activities: the number of start-up companies formed and the number of initial public offering firms to which a university had previously licensed a technology.

This paper analyzes pure-revenue technology licensing, where licensors solely seek the obtaining royalties. Since strategic concerns are left aside, the licensing decision is mainly driven by the features of the innovations. The aim is to identify such characteristics.

This paper develops a game-theoretic model that predicts when a university invention is commercialized in a start-up firm rather than an established firm. The model predicts that university inventions are more likely to occur in start-ups when the technology transfer officers search cost is high, the cost of development or commercialization is lower for a start-up, or the inventors effort cost in development is lower in a start-up.

Recognizing that defense technology innovations move too slowly from the lab to the field, Congress created three programs within the Department of Defense (DoD) to speed and enhance the transition. This report reviews the programs and offers recommendations to DoD.

This paper focuses on European small- medium ‘serial innovators’ at the beginning of the 1990s. The authors propose a taxonomy of technology based SMEs strategies in the market for technology, in the market for embedded technologies and in the market for products.

The authors review conflicting aspects of faculty participation in licensing, focusing first on the pro side—that is, the apparent need for faculty involvement, not only in recognizing when their research has commercial potential, but also in development toward commercialization. They then discuss the con side—the extent to which faculty involvement with licensing compromises their traditional research agenda.

The authors postulate that the business school can effectively augment the university technology transfer office in developing and growing successful start-ups. They use Carnegie Mellon University as an example of this approach.

In this paper, the author does not wish to focus on the management of outputs per se. Instead, the
focus is on the type or nature of the outputs produced, the research process and other related university-based processes, and mostly, even further upstream, on the “university science and technology research system” itself.