Abstract
Patenting and technology commercialization activities are rapidly gaining momentum in Indian academia. Currently, there is paucity of data suggesting technology commercialization activities among Indian academia. This study aims to examine issues regarding technology commercialization among Indian academics. The objectives of this study are to (1) understand the policy implications of university-industry technology transfer and (2) propose a conceptual model for technology transfer suitable for Indian scenario. The data included for our analysis is drawn from our previous study of 25 Indian Universities. The orientation of the paper is as follows: “Literature Review” is subdivided into two sub-sections — “Policies Implemented for Leveraging Successful Academic Research Commercialization in the USA, Japan, and Israel” and “University Research Commercialization — Case Studies of Universities in the USA, Japan, and Israel” are presented. “Methodology” deals with the methodology used for the study. “Discussion” is further subdivided into three sections — “Analysis and Comparisons of Policy Implications on University-Industry Technology Transfer,” “Practice of Academic Technology Transfer in Indian Universities/Institutes,” and “Conceptual Model Recommended for University-Industry Tech Commercialization in India.” “Conclusion” concludes the topic. The current practices of academia-industry knowledge commercialization in India are limited, and the paper is an attempt to propose a suitable model to encourage commercialization activities by Indian universities.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1692-1713 |
| Number of pages | 22 |
| Journal | Journal of the Knowledge Economy |
| Volume | 13 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 06-2022 |
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Economics and Econometrics
Access to Document
Other files and links
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'University-Industry Technology Transfer in India: a Plausible Model Based on Success Stories from the USA, Japan, and Israel'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver
}
In: Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Vol. 13, No. 2, 06.2022, p. 1692-1713.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - University-Industry Technology Transfer in India
T2 - a Plausible Model Based on Success Stories from the USA, Japan, and Israel
AU - Ravi, Ramya
AU - Janodia, Manthan D.
N1 - Funding Information: The Indian Patent Act 1970 laid the foundation for creative initiation and the concept of reverse engineering in the pharmaceutical sector through a structured approach. The Indian research institutions innovated over 50 pharmaceutical processes and domestic firms benefited from indigenous innovations due to the non-exclusive licenses granted by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) labs. This reaffirmed the fact that innovation is encouraged by structured IP protection. The Technology Policy Statement (TPS) in 1983 was enforced with the basic objective of supporting indigenous technology and encouraging the capacity for efficient adaptation of imported technologies. TPS emphasized (1) technology development, (2) inventions, (3) enhancing conventional skills, (4) increasing the demand for indigenous technology, (5) fiscal incentives, and (6) establishing in-house R&D centers. TPS encouraged a blend of indigenous and imported technology (Joseph, ). Later in 1986, the Research and Development Cess Act was promulgated to initiate funds for the import of technologies and to finance indigenous technologies. Simultaneously, the Technology Information Forecasting and Assessment Council (TIFAC), an autonomous body owned by the Government of India under the Department of Science and Technology, was established in 1988. The objective of TIFAC was to provide funding and encourage the development of infrastructure for commercialization (Kumar & Jain, ). In the mid-1990s, the researchers of CSIR were required to file patent applications but the policy failed to generate revenue from such patents. The majority of patents granted to CSIR during 2001–2010 were not licensed and could not generate revenue even to compensate a minimum of 5% of the cost incurred on filing the patent application by CSIR (Joseph, ). The policy to support academic research commercialization in India was pushed through The Protection and Utilization of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill (PFIP) 2008. The Bill sought to provide incentives for inventions and commercialization of intellectual property from public-funded universities. The highlights of the bill were as follows. (1) The inventor must disclose the information to the research institute and within 60 days the organization must disclose the same to the government. (2) The institute should furnish the details of proposed countries intending for patent protection. (3) The inventor will be eligible for a minimum of 30% royalties from the Public Funded Intellectual Property (PFIP). (4) Failure to intimate the government would invite penalty. However, the proposed bill never became legislation (Srivastava & Chandra, ). The fear was that the industry may dictate the research and would lead to no provision for the government to steer the public-funded research (Singh & Tare, ). Later in the year 2009, the National Science and Technology Entrepreneurship Development Board (NSTEDB) was established by the Ministry of Science and Technology to support the creation of entrepreneurs. The NSTEDB had encouraged the establishment of Technology Business incubators (TBI) at different universities (Srivastava & Chandra, ). In 2018, All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) encouraged a program known as AICTE Training and Learning (ATAL) Academy, to be established in all technical universities, institutes, and deemed to be universities to enhance and upgrade the technical knowledge of faculty members. The training sessions are conducted through an online portal (AICTE Training And Learning (ATAL) Academy, ). The Government of India under the Ministry of Human Resources and Development (MHRD), now Ministry of Education, established MHRD’s Innovation Cell (MIC) to revolutionize culture of innovation and nurture students by cultivating new ideas among Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). Major initiatives undertaken by MIC include (1) Smart India Hackathon (SIH) 2019 to encourage product innovation and inculcate a problem-solving mindset (AICTE- India, ), (2) Institution Innovation Council (IIC) — to support the scouting and pre-incubation of ideas and develop domestic innovation ecosystem, and (3) Atal Ranking of Institutions on Innovation Achievements (ARIIA), an initiative to rank HEIs and universities in India on an index of “Innovation and Entrepreneurship Development.” ARIIA encourages Indian institutions to be competitive globally in terms of innovation (MHRD’s innovation council, Ministry of Human Resource Development, AICTE, ). Compared to other nations, India implemented various programs to create awareness on innovation and patenting, quite late. Though policy mechanisms were envisaged as early as 1980, the lack of implementation led to India lagging in creating a culture of innovation. Indian academia and research institutions have just realized the importance of commercializing academic research. Funding Information: Before 2004, Japanese inventions arising from government grants and sponsored research were owned by the nation, usually by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT). Such inventions were either free to use or would be transferred to the parties under a non-exclusive license against modest royalties, whereas in the case of contractual company-sponsored research, the company could retain an exclusive license. The inventors could own the inventions arising from donations or receive the standard allowance for research as per the policy of the concerned university. The average number of patents filed by national universities contributed to 50–70% of total applications per year. There were barriers in university-industry collaborations wherein the government employees and faculty members from national universities were barred from compensation for consultation outside the organization. Moreover, funds from sponsored research were prohibited to compensate the salaries of researchers working under the project. To address the discrepancies, the Japanese government implemented four laws in a span of 6 years from 1998 to 2004 that changed the legal framework of IP management and academia-industry collaboration. The four laws were the following. (1) Law to Promote the Transfer on University Technologies (the TLO law) in 1998 emphasized a system for the Japanese government to approve university Technology Licensing Offices (TLOs). This law endorsed transparency, arbitrated systematic transfers of academic research to industries, and channelized the compensation to inventors, laboratories, and the university. (2) Law of Special Measures to Revive Industry, in 1999 (the Japan Bayh-Dole Act), had the same strategies as the US Bayh-Dole Act, with an exception that it cannot be implemented by universities until they attained the legal status as semi-autonomous administrative entities in 2004. (3) The Law to Strengthen Industrial Technology supported the university researchers to establish and manage companies, which was implemented in the year 2000. It also removed barriers to using funds from sponsored research, which could be used to pay the salaries of permanent administrators and teaching staff involved in the project. (4) In April 2004, the University Incorporation Law gave national universities an independent legal status, which earlier was the branch of MEXT. By attaining the status as legally independent entities, Article 35 of Japan Patent Law could be enforced, where the employee’s inventions are assigned to the employer unlike earlier when the invention was owned by MEXT (Kneller, ). Publisher Copyright: © 2022, The Author(s).
PY - 2022/6
Y1 - 2022/6
N2 - Patenting and technology commercialization activities are rapidly gaining momentum in Indian academia. Currently, there is paucity of data suggesting technology commercialization activities among Indian academia. This study aims to examine issues regarding technology commercialization among Indian academics. The objectives of this study are to (1) understand the policy implications of university-industry technology transfer and (2) propose a conceptual model for technology transfer suitable for Indian scenario. The data included for our analysis is drawn from our previous study of 25 Indian Universities. The orientation of the paper is as follows: “Literature Review” is subdivided into two sub-sections — “Policies Implemented for Leveraging Successful Academic Research Commercialization in the USA, Japan, and Israel” and “University Research Commercialization — Case Studies of Universities in the USA, Japan, and Israel” are presented. “Methodology” deals with the methodology used for the study. “Discussion” is further subdivided into three sections — “Analysis and Comparisons of Policy Implications on University-Industry Technology Transfer,” “Practice of Academic Technology Transfer in Indian Universities/Institutes,” and “Conceptual Model Recommended for University-Industry Tech Commercialization in India.” “Conclusion” concludes the topic. The current practices of academia-industry knowledge commercialization in India are limited, and the paper is an attempt to propose a suitable model to encourage commercialization activities by Indian universities.
AB - Patenting and technology commercialization activities are rapidly gaining momentum in Indian academia. Currently, there is paucity of data suggesting technology commercialization activities among Indian academia. This study aims to examine issues regarding technology commercialization among Indian academics. The objectives of this study are to (1) understand the policy implications of university-industry technology transfer and (2) propose a conceptual model for technology transfer suitable for Indian scenario. The data included for our analysis is drawn from our previous study of 25 Indian Universities. The orientation of the paper is as follows: “Literature Review” is subdivided into two sub-sections — “Policies Implemented for Leveraging Successful Academic Research Commercialization in the USA, Japan, and Israel” and “University Research Commercialization — Case Studies of Universities in the USA, Japan, and Israel” are presented. “Methodology” deals with the methodology used for the study. “Discussion” is further subdivided into three sections — “Analysis and Comparisons of Policy Implications on University-Industry Technology Transfer,” “Practice of Academic Technology Transfer in Indian Universities/Institutes,” and “Conceptual Model Recommended for University-Industry Tech Commercialization in India.” “Conclusion” concludes the topic. The current practices of academia-industry knowledge commercialization in India are limited, and the paper is an attempt to propose a suitable model to encourage commercialization activities by Indian universities.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85124293320&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85124293320&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s13132-022-00908-z
DO - 10.1007/s13132-022-00908-z
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85124293320
SN - 1868-7865
VL - 13
SP - 1692
EP - 1713
JO - Journal of the Knowledge Economy
JF - Journal of the Knowledge Economy
IS - 2
ER -