Academic Institutions and

their Role in NIS

Universities in NIS
Universities are important institutional actors in national
innovations systems (NIS)

Industrial-economy and developing-economy governments

seek to use universities as instruments for knowledge based
economic development and change

Contribute towards knowledge creation, development and

diffusion
Readings
• Krishna, V. V. (2019). Universities in the national innovation systems:
Emerging innovation landscapes in Asia-Pacific. Journal of Open
Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 5(3), 43.
• Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2006). Universities in national
innovation systems.
• Basant, R. (2008). Bangalore cluster. Growing industrial clusters in Asia,
147.
• Sampat, B. N. (2009). The Bayh-Dole model in developing countries:
Reflections on the Indian Bill on publicly funded intellectual
property. Policy brief, 54.
Functions and Outputs of University
Scientific and technological information: guiding research towards
efficient applied R&D in industry
Equipment and instrumentation (used for production or research by
firms)
Prototypes for new products and processes

Skills or human capital i.e., students and faculty members

Networks of scientific and technological capabilities: facilitating the

diffusion of new knowledge
Linkages among institutions and with industry
 Cultural Differences

Academic researchers Industrial innovation

Professional recognition and Secrecy
advancement Limitations to the disclosure of research
First to disclose and publish their result. results.
Prompt disclosure of results and the
methods used to achieve them
 The Historical Context
The First Academic Revolution: Institutionalized teaching in
specialized higher educational institutions.
INDIAN ▪ Nalanda and Takshashila: functioned for more than 800
SUBCONTINENT years between 5th - 12th century CE.
▪ Residential university with 2000 teachers and 20000
students coming from India, China, Korea, Mongolia,
Turkey, and Sri Lanka.
▪ Mainly focused on Buddhist studies, religion, culture, and
civilization.

CAIRO Al-Azhar University, established in 972 CE.

ITALY University of Bologna, founded in 1088: Reported first
systematic evidence of institutionalized teaching.
FRANCE University of Paris, founded in 1160
ENGLAND Oxford and Cambridge, established around the 12th Century.

The first academic revolution phase continued until the beginning of the 19th Century.
Source: Emerging Innovation Landscapes in Asia-Pacific, by V.V.Krishna in Journal of Open Innovation : Technology, Market and
Complexity, 2019, 5, 43; doi:10.3390/joitmc5030043
 The Historical Context
The Second Academic Revolution
• The ‘transformation of universities from institutions of cultural preservation’,
towards advancement of knowledge via research, particular emphasis on
science and technology disciplines.

• ‘Humboldt model’ termed by Martin Ben, reflected unity of teaching and

research.
▪ Successfully established at the Berlin University in 1810 by the Prussian
educational reformer Wilhelm von Humboldt.

• In the United States, research training along with advanced degrees got
initiated in the university systems around mid-19th cent. , at Harvard and
Colombia, often inspired by their German doctoral mentors.

• Later, the model spread quite rapidly since the 19th century to most parts of
Europe, Asia, and North America.

Source: Emerging Innovation Landscapes in Asia-Pacific, by V.V.Krishna in Journal of Open Innovation : Technology, Market and
Complexity, 2019, 5, 43; doi:10.3390/joitmc5030043
The Historical Context
The Third Academic Revolution
• Universities got involved in knowledge transfer and economic development.
• Coupling teaching and research with innovation and at the same time forging
university and industrial links.
University-Industry ▪ Basic research and innovation potential in
Relationships chemistry at the German universities fed into
three major firms such as Bayer in 1863; Hoechst
after 1880; and BASF in 1873.
▪ By 1877, Germany accounted for half of world’s
dye production and captured the world market.
▪ Between 1908 -1912, there begin the process of
synthesizing ammonia from nitrogen and
hydrogen under high pressures, which came to be
known as the Haber-Bosch process.
University-Industry- The last one and half decade, saw the rise of
Government .i.e. entrepreneurial universities especially in MIT and
The Triple Helix Stanford.
 • Internal and external factors behind stronger
University-Industry linkages :
• Slow growth in overall public funding
• Increased competition for research
funding
• Cost pressures
Key • Universities became more aggressive and
“entrepreneurial” in seeking new sources of
developments funding.
• Academic research promoted higher
in the US regional and national economic benefits.
• Seek closer links with industry to expand
research support.
• Variations across nations due to the structure
of domestic industry, the size and structure
of other publicly funded research
performers, and numerous factors.
Trends in University-Industry Linkages
Increase in co-authorship between UK industry and university researchers:
• Co-authorship increased from approx. 20% to nearly 47% of all UK scientific
papers, published by industrial researchers during the 1981-2000 period.

• Calvert and Patel (2002) analyzed 22,000 papers: saw a threefold increase in
co-authorship during 1981-2000 without any specific encouragement
(beyond funding cuts) from government policy.

• By 1989, co-authorship rates for Western Europe rose: 40% of published

papers, While Japanese co-authorship rates only slightly exceeded 20%.
(Hicks et al. 1996)
University research and industrial innovation
Information source % rating it as “ very important” for
Industrial R&D
Publication & reports 41.2%
Informal Interactions 35.6%
Meetings & Conferences 35.1%
Consulting 31.8%
Contract Research 20.9%
Recent hires 19.6%
Cooperative R&D Projects 17.9%
Patents 17.5%
Licenses 9.5%
Personnel Exchange 5.8%
Sources of Information for Industrial R&D
Source : Cohen et al. (2002)
University research and industrial innovation

• Inter-industry differences in the relationship between university and

industrial innovation.

• The biomedical sector, especially biotechnology and pharmaceuticals

are key examples.

• In other technological and industrial fields, universities occasionally

contributed relevant inventions, but most commercially significant
inventions came from non-academic research.
Indian Context
Associated Contribution to the Chemical and Pharmaceuticals Industry
Personalities
Prafulla Chandra Ray • Presidency College, created in 1855 became a center of
(Father of Indian industrial research.
Chemistry) • Role in establishment of Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical
Works (BCPW) in 1893.
• By the 1st World War, BCPW became a major supplier to meet
wartime needs and demands.
T.K. Gajjar • Established a chemical plant around 1890’s, later grew into
(Chemistry Alembic Chemical works Ltd. in Baroda in 1907.
Professor) • Established a polytechnic institute known as Kala Bhavan —
the pre-cursor to the present-day M.S. University of Baroda.
S.S. Bhatnagar • First Chief of CSIR, created in 1942, previously headed the
Chemical Laboratories at Punjab University in Lahore in 1940.

▪ Establishment of the Department of Chemical Technology at Bombay University in 1934,

played an important part in the establishment of National Chemical Laboratory of CSIR at
Pune and chemical industrial cluster around Bombay and Pune since the 1940s.
Indian STI System
Strategic agencies (DoS, DRDO, DAE)

Non-strategic bodies (CSIR)

Funding agencies (DST, DBT, ICSSR)

Research Agencies (ICAR, ICMR)

Industry R&D System

Universities: Central, State and others

Centrally funded institutes of national importance: Evolution of these institutes

Most Important Source of Information or Ideas Percentage of Firms
In-house R&D and personnel 12.6
Recent hires from ither firms 1.2
Knowledge from parent or another 5.6
Suppliers 15.8
Consultancy firms 5.5
Business associations and conferences/exhibitions 7.9
Professional Journals and Trade Publications 3.9
Products or services available in the market 14.9
Government ministries or programmes 1.9
Universities and research institutes 0.8
Internet 3.3
Customer Feedback 24.3
Do not know 2.5

Sources of Information and Ideas for Innovation Activity, 2013

Compiled from the World Bank Enterprise Survey –India , Innovation Module,2014

Source: Basant, 2021

Theoretical Conceptualization
of Academic Research in
Innovation Process
Conceptualization

• Mode 1 of knowledge production: Linear model of Innovation

• Traditional knowledge created within a disciplinary, primarily cognitive
context
• Cognitive and social norms which must be followed in the production,
legitimization and diffusion of knowledge

• Mode 2 of knowledge production (Gibbons et al.,1994)

• Knowledge is created in broader, transdisciplinary social and economic
contexts

• Triple Helix Framework

 Mode 2 of Knowledge Production
“Mode 2” reflects:
• Emergence of distinct set of cognitive and social norms that are different from
those that govern mode 1

• The increased scale and diversity of knowledge inputs required for scientific
research

• Interaction of many more communities of researchers and other actors within

any given research area

• Purely academic research norms may prove less influential even in such areas
of fundamental research as biomedical research, and

• Increased inter institutional collaboration, associated with a more pluralistic ,

interdisciplinary and “networked” innovation system.
Attributes of KP in Mode 2
• Produced in the context of application
• Transdisciplinary
• Develops a distinct and evolving framework guided by problem solving
• Generated and sustained in the context of application
• Develops its own distinct theoretical structure, research methods and modes
of practice
• Transdisciplinarity is dynamic
• Heterogeneity and Organizational Diversity
• Extended to institutes, research centres, government agencies, industrial
laboratories, think-tanks, consultancies, in their interaction.
• Social accountability and reflexivity
• Sensitivity to the impact of research is built in from the start
• Quality control
• From peer review to impact oriented
Triple Helix Framework
• Popularized by Etzkowitz and Leytesdorff (1997).

• It emphasizes the increased interaction among institutional

actors in industrial economies’ innovation systems.
• Linkages among institutional spheres
• Each sphere takes the role of the other.
• Universities assume entrepreneurial tasks -- marketing knowledge
and creating companies
• Firms take on an academic dimension -- sharing knowledge among
each other and training at ever-higher skill levels. (Etzkowitz et al.
1998, p. 6)
 Triple Helix Framework

University
Funding and
New ideas, product
strategic demands
and innovations

Industry Government

Jobs, taxes, infrastructure

Knowledge generation and production

Triple Helix Types
Triple Helix Type – I
▪ Nation state encompasses
academia and industry and
directs the relations between
them
▪ New knowledge is produced
only within universities and
research centres.
(Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000)
Triple Helix Type II
• The decreasing direct control of
the state on the functions of
Type I
• Focus on fixing market failures
• Mechanisms of communication
between the actors are strongly
influenced by and deeply
grounded in market
mechanisms and innovations
(Nelson and Winter, 1982;
Bartels, et al., 2012)
 Triple Helix Type III
• The three actors assume each other’s
roles in the institutional spheres as
well as the performance of their
traditional functions.
Industry • The transformation of universities is
of particular relevance. Universities
take on entrepreneurial tasks such as
marketing knowledge, increased
technology transfers and the creation
Governm Universi of spin-offs and startups, as a result
ent ty of both internal and external
influences. (Etzkowitz, 2017)
Triple Helix Type IV
• Additional features of
arbitrageurs (banks, financial
institutions, venture capital, etc)
and intermediary organisations
(industry associations,
incubators etc)
• Diffused ICT in the context of
the fourth industrial revolution .
 Pharmaceutical sector ICT sector
• Currently into the traditional category of a • Currently into the category of a Triple Helix
Triple Helix Type II and transitioning to Type III.
Triple Helix Type III. • Intermediaries in ICT mostly interact with
• Industry actors : major share of interaction themselves
with intermediaries (industry associations). • Industry actors have the lion’s share of
• Knowledge-based institutions primarily interaction with the government
interact with industry. • Knowledge-based institutions primarily
• Intermediaries mostly interact with interact with the government and
themselves themselves
• Government interacts with intermediaries. • Financial institutions and arbitrageurs
• Institutions and arbitrageurs primarily primarily interact with intermediaries and
interact with the knowledge base. the knowledge base
• Government mainly interacts with
knowledge-based institutions
Designing the Policy

:
Two types of policies

Policies encouraging the

Policies attempting to
formation of regional
stimulate university
economic “clusters” and
patenting and licensing
spin-offs based on
activities.
university research, and

Key feature being technology commercialization instead of science push.

 University and Regional Development
• Motivated by the high-technology regional clusters in the US
• Silicon Valley in California
• Route 128 in the Boston area

• Clusters: Agglomeration of new firms and major research universities

• University of California, Berkeley; Stanford , and the University of California, San
Francisco
• Boston, Harvard University and MIT

• Motivated the creation of Science Parks

• Localisation phenomenon
• “Knowledge spillovers” within the United States: measured by the location of
inventors citing university patents, localized at the regional level. ( Trajtenberg,
Jaffe, and Henderson, 1997)
• Patents filed by U.S. inventors disproportionately cite scientific papers from
research institutions located in the same state as these inventors (Hicks et al.
2001)
Why Agglomerate?

• Skilled labour
• Skilled inputs
• Specialized infrastructure
• Innovation generating informal exchanges
•
Asian context
• Tsukuba Science City, Japan
• Scientific breakthroughs: Example of specification of the molecular
structure of superconducting materials.
• Public – Private Partnership projects: Earthquake safety, environmental
degradation, studies of roadways, fermentation science, microbiology,
etc.

• The National University of Singapore and Biopolis- Biomedical sciences

• Daedeok Innopolis , South Korea

• Innovation hubs near the and Peking Universities, Beijing

• The Research Park of IIT Madras

• Hsinchu Science Park of Taiwan- Semi-conductor manufacturing

 Critiques
Little evidence exists that university “causes” the development of
regional high-technology agglomerations.

Lesser evidence supports the argument that the regional or

innovation policies of governments are effective in creating these
agglomerations.
Historical reasons: Sturgeon (2000) argues that Silicon Valley’s
history as a center for new-firm formation and innovation dates
back to the early decades of the 20th century.
Such agglomerations-contingency, path-dependence and
supporting policies.
Silicon Valley of India
A. During 1950’s and 60’s
• Pre – Independence steps: Large PSU investment by government in
HMT, BEL, BHEL, HAL (1940) and ITI.
• License was given to private companies as well like Motor Industries
Company (MICO) a subsidiary of Robert Bosch German company
and machine tool manufacturer WIDIA.
B. During 1970’s
• Early recoganization, Software Export Scheme was launched in 1972
• FERA in 1973 -- - reduced the foreign ownership-IBM left but
company like ICL (UK) stayed, which led to following :
➢Lead to in-house software development.
➢Many companies created 8-bit microprocessor and sold in
local market.
➢Around 1200 software personnel were released into Indian
market.
• Trade liberalization in 1970s w.r.t computer hardware.
Silicon Valley of India
C. During 1980’s
• Stricter control in 1980s on hardware imports.
➢ Protection to domestic hardware industry
• But relaxed norms for software exporters.
➢Indian software industry shifted focus from mainframe
towards producing and using micro or personal computers
➢Generated talent to programming for PCs like MS-DOS and
UNIX.
➢Policy change in 1986 further supported the import-1400
UNIX system were shipped in 1987-88 compare to 480 a year
ago.
➢PCs also arrived, Sterling Computers reduced the price .
➢By December 1988, 500 software companies were making
packaged software .
Developments in the Private Sector
• HCL, WIPRO became first companies in world to build computers
based on UNIX

• Computer policy in 1984: IT was identified as an industry.

• Measures to facilitate imports and reduce tax burden.

• Software Technology Park established in 1988-91.

• Entire graduating class from IITs during 70s and 80s emigrated.

• In 1998-Indian engineers were running more than 775 technology

companies in California's’ Silicon Valley.

• Several global MNCs such as Microsoft, Google, Motorola, Nortel,

Intel, IBM etc. have contributed towards Bangalore’s R&D landscape

• Linkage between small firms and MNCs

Silicon Valley of India : Pre Independence

• British military base

• M Visvesvaraya set up engineering college in 1917 and lead the

creation of Mysore University

• IISc-1911

• Large number of educational institutions in and around Bangalore

fuelled the labour force
 Sources of Knowledge in Industrial Cluster
A. Intra firm sources
▪ Learning by doing (Passive experience of production)
▪ Improved process and practices derived from trial-and-error experimentation.
▪ Adaptation and improvement of existing technologies ( reverse engineering etc)
B. Intra- cluster sources
▪ Knowledge spillovers/diffusion between producers
▪ Knowledge spillovers/diffusion between users and producers of machinery/material
or production related services.
▪ Intra-cluster mobility of skilled labour
▪ Training and skill development through cluster based/mediated initiatives.
▪ Links between enterprises and cluster-based technology institutions (technology
development, adaptation, testing, certification etc.)
▪ Collaboration among cluster-based enterprises for adaptation and technology
development. (machinery, product design)
▪ Links between enterprises and customers located in the cluster (MNC, large firms)
C. Sources outside the cluster
▪ Customers and traders knowledge
▪ Machinery and other input suppliers
▪ Collaborative testing or technology development with technology institutions and
enterprises outside the cluster
▪ Externally sourced training
▪ Visits to outside clusters/firms
Basant (2002, 2006) IIM Ahmadabad, Working Paper, W.P. 2006-05-02
Key issues
• Patenting the results of publicly funded academic research

• Should publicly funded research be patented?

• Should such academic institute generate resource using the

public funds?

• What about licensing?

➢ Exclusive
➢Non-exclusive
About Bayh-Dole Act
• The Bayh-Dole Act, formerly known as the Patent and Trademark Law
Amendments Act :
❑ federal law enacted in 1980
❑ enables universities, non-profit research institutions and small
businesses
❑to own, patent and commercialize inventions developed under
federally funded research programs within their organizations.
❑ Act was sponsored by two senators, Birch Bayh of Indiana and Bob
Dole of Kansas.

• The Act facilitated university patenting and licensing in two ways:

I. It replaced a web of Institutional Patent Agreements (IPAs) that
had been negotiated between individual universities and federal
agencies with a uniform policy.
II. Act's provisions expressed Congressional support for the
negotiation of exclusive licenses between universities and
industrial firms for the results of federally funded research.
Key provisions of the Act
University entitled to retain
ownership of any inventions
created as a result of federal University also must patent all
funding, unless the funding agency inventions it elects to own and
informs the University otherwise commercialize.
under the "exceptional
circumstances“.

The University must provide the In granting a license to use the

U.S. government with a invention, the University also
nontransferable, irrevocable, paid- generally must give priority to small
up, non-exclusive license to use the businesses, while maintaining the
invention. fair-market value of the invention.

Excess revenue must support University must share a portion of

research and education. the royalties with the inventor(s).
Motivation behind the enactment of the act
• In 1920’s, few U.S. universities were patenting patent as faculty inventions
• Only a few institutions developed formal patent policies prior to the late
1940s.
• Several of the most lucrative patents in the post- Bayh-Dole era were filed
before Bayh Dole by Universities (Mowery et al., 2004).
• There existed a variation in rules and procedures for doing so across the
numerous government agencies funding university research.
• Universities previously avoided licensing activities: Concerned to
compromise their missions to widely diffuse science and technology
(Sampat 2006).
• As late as 1978, the federal government had licensed less than 5 percent of
the as many as 30,000 patents it owned.
• Only a handful of U.S. universities even had technology transfer or patent
offices.
Renewing American innovation policy
Creates clarity and uniformity in processes for ownership of
intellectual property from publicly funded research.

Codifies the process through which institutions must disclose and

report publicly funded IP.

Created a standard set of rules across funders.

Spurred many more universities to work more closely with industry,

and so created a powerful vehicle for leveraging U.S. investment in
basic research into a far stronger engine for commercialization.

It decentralized technology management to universities and

businesses that invented the product with government support.
 Effects of Bayh Dole Act : From Empirical
evidence
▪ Rise in Patenting Licensing Activity:
❑ Universities share of patenting increased : from less than 0.3%
in 1963 to nearly 4% by 1999.
❑ American universities experienced a tenfold increase in their
patents,
❑ Created more than 2,200 companies to exploit their technology.
❑ Moreover, academic technology transfer has supported the
launch of over 12,000 start-ups since 1995.
❑ According to a report prepared for AUTM and the
Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) , from 1996 to 2015,
academic patents and their subsequent licensing to industry—
• bolstered U.S. GDP by up to $591 billion,
• contributed to $1.3 trillion in gross U.S. industrial output,
• supported 4,272,000 person years of employment.
 Effects of Bayh Dole Act : Empirical
evidence
▪ Thriving Technology transfer
❑ AUTM’s 2016 Annual Survey found --
• number of invention disclosures increased to 25,825 over
the previous five years.
• these discoveries lead to 7,021 U.S. patents issued.
• identified 1,024 new start-ups formed on the basis of
technology transfer.

▪ Public-private partnerships flourished

❑In the field of biotechnology, more than 200 drugs and
vaccines have been developed through PPP since the Bayh-
Dole Act entered force in 1980.
 Effects of Bayh Dole Act : Empirical
evidence
❑Hausman, N. (2012):
• increase in university inter-connectedness with industry
under the IPR regime produced important local economic
benefits.
• long-run employment, payroll, payroll per worker, and
average establishment size grew differentially more after
the 1980 in industries more closely related to innovations
produced by a local university or hospital.
• Related to Patenting and Licensing
• Ratio of research university patents to academic research spending
remains ‘constant’ through the 1963-93 period: suggested no
significant increase in universities’ “patent propensity” after passage
of the act in 1980.

• AUTM Licensing Survey ,2007 : In 2006, licensing revenues (1.6 bn by

2005) account for a miniscule share of only a little more than 3
percent for total academic R&D funds .

• Lita Nelsen, director of the technology licensing office at the (MIT),

observed “the direct economic impact of technology licensing has
been relatively small , most university licensing offices barely break
even” (Nelsen 1998).

• The three top revenue earners in the post-Bayh-Dole era (Columbia

California, and Stanford) the bulk of revenues are driven by a small
number of inventions (Mowery et al. 2001)
• Patenting and licensing of inventions are a relatively unimportant
channel in most industries (Cohen et al 2002; Agrawal and
Henderson 2002).

• Studies inconclusive on whether technology transfer outcomes

have improved.

• Awareness issue: It is difficult to disentangle whether Bayh-Dole

enhanced awareness of patent issues among U.S. universities, or
whether this increased awareness was itself a motivation for
passage of Bayh Dole (Mowery and Sampat 2001.)

• A focus on IP may be leading universities to be so aggressive in

their pursuit and defense of patents that these activities hinder
the progress of research (Heller and Eisenberg 1998)
International Experiences
• Many European countries enacted laws in the last 17 years that
substantially altered the rights to university-based innovations.
• In Germany, Austria, Denmark, Finland, and Norway, new laws ended the
so-called “professor’s privilege”.
• Norway ended the “professor’s privilege,” in 2003 by which university
researchers had previously enjoyed full rights to new business ventures
and intellectual property they created.
• The new policy transferred two-thirds of these rights to the universities
themselves, creating a policy regime like that which typically prevails in
the United States and many other countries today.
• The Chinese version of the Act was passed in 1999.
• India, a bill on the similar line was proposed in 2008 called “The
Protection and Utilization of Public-Funded Intellectual Property Bill”.
• It proposed the mandatory disclosure of all inventions by universities
and public-funded research institutions within a stipulated time period
to the appropriate authority for patenting.
 Institutes filing patents in India
Amongst the top 10 institutes of India filing
2000 1901 patents between 2019-2021.
No. of patents filed between 2019-

1519 1516
1500
1154 1066 ❑ All IITs cumulatively have filed more than
1000 4000 patents between 2013-2021.
❑ Amity University cumulatively has filed
2021

500 more than 1200 patents between 2013-

2021.
0 ❑ Some emerging private education
Institutes institutions in this regard are Shoolini
University of Biotechnology and
Indian Institute of Technology (collective) Management Sciences, Shobhit Institute of
Chandigarh University Biotechnology and Management Studies,
Lovely Professional University Galgotias University and SRM University.

Sanskriti University
Chandigarh Group of Colleges

Source: Controller General of Patents, Trademarks, Designs and Geographical Indications (various issues)
 About IISc Patenting Activity
• Researchers and scientists from IISc filed 3,147 patent applications from January
2001 to December 2022
• IISc has been granted a total of 145 patents in the year 2022. This means - two
patents every five days.
• In 2022 itself, 585 patent applications were filed by IISc itself, up from 512 the
previous year
Patents in Information and Technology
Top applicants for IT patents at the IPO (Cumulative number
of applications during 2008-9 through 2017-18)

Applicants Cumulative number of applications

Tata Consultancy Services Limited 983
Wipro 640
Samsung India Software Operations Pvt. Ltd. 551
Samsung R&D Institute India- Bangalore Pvt. Ltd. 546
Infosys Technologies Limited 452
Indian Institute of Technology (Collective) 212
HCL Technologies Limited 174
Tejas Networks India Ltd. 95
Hike Ltd. 66
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd 57
Dr.Kanapathy Gopalakrishnan 36
SRM University 32
Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. 29
INEDA systems Pvt. Ltd 21
Tata Elxsi Ltd. 14
Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay 9
LG Soft India Pvt. Ltd 7

Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC) 6

Newgen Software Technologies Limited 6
Rajendra Kumar Khare 5

Sources: Controller General of Patents, Trademarks, Designs and Geographical Indications (various issues) ;
Mani, S. (2020). India's quest for technological self-reliance: Analysis of her record with respect to patents in the post trips phase.
 Conclusions
Most important driving factors for innovation : R&D funds, locational factor and
institute's policies.

Second level driving indicators i.e. overall time spent on research activities; age,
experience, research attitude and motivation of research staff

Collaborative research and academic patenting ensures incentive in the form of

joint projects, collaborative publications and consulting opportunities etc. It
encourages research personnel and students to undertake risk and venture into
the entrepreneurial activities.

Higher support from the Indian government to academic institutions through Plan
Fund (PF) takes the time period of four years to generate positive impact on patent
and publication intensity.
Proximity of the location of scientific department to its related industrial unit, leads to higher
publication output per faculty through information flows from industry to academic research
facility.

Among institutional factors: joint management of IP activities by all stakeholders,

immediate recognition of IP related activity of the researchers by providing them IP
linked rewards have significant positive impact on the patent probability and intensity.

Making patenting important criteria for career advancement should always be complimented
with supportive institutional infrastructure and be aligned with the requirement and nature
of disciplinary output and individual motivation.