Many hands: The effect of the prior inventor-intermediaries relationship on academic licensing

Agrawal, 2006, Engaging the inventor: exploring licensing strategies for university inventions and the role of latent knowledge, Strateg. Manage. J., 27, 63, 10.1002/smj.508 Arora, 2004 Arora, 2004, Specialized supply firms, property rights and firm boundaries, Ind. Corp. Chang., 13, 451, 10.1093/icc/dth018 Baglieri, 2018, University technology transfer office business models: one size does not fit all, Technovation, 10.1016/j.technovation.2018.05.003 Benassi, 2009, Playing in between: patent brokers in markets for technology, R&D Manage., 39, 68, 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2008.00537.x Besen, 1991, An introduction to the law and economics of intellectual property, J. Econ. Perspect., 5, 3, 10.1257/jep.5.1.3 Blakwell, 2009, Cem: coarsened exact matching in Stata, Stata J., 9, 524, 10.1177/1536867X0900900402 Bozeman, 2015, The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: revisiting the contingent effectiveness model, Res. Policy, 44, 34, 10.1016/j.respol.2014.06.008 Buenstorf, 2009, Is commercialization good or bad for science? Individual-level evidence from the Max Planck Society, Res. Policy, 38, 281, 10.1016/j.respol.2008.11.006 Clark, 1991, Product development performance: strategy Clayton, 2018, Behind the Scenes: intermediary organizations that facilitate science commercialization through entrepreneurship, Acad. Manag. Perspect., 32, 104, 10.5465/amp.2016.0133 Cleves, 2016, Parametric models, 197 Cox, 1972, Regression models and Life-tables (with discussion), J. R. Stat. Soc., 34, 187 De Silva, 2018, Innovation intermediaries and collaboration: knowledge–based practices and internal value creation, Res. Policy, 47, 70, 10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.011 Dechenaux, 2008, Appropriability and Commercialization: evidence from MIT inventions, Manage. Sci., 54, 893, 10.1287/mnsc.1070.0780 Derrick, 2015, Integration versus separation: structure and strategies of the technology transfer office (TTO) in medical research organizations, J. Technol. Transf., 40, 105, 10.1007/s10961-014-9343-1 Elfenbein, 2007, Publications, patents, and the market for university inventions, J. Econ. Behav. Organ., 63, 688, 10.1016/j.jebo.2006.05.010 Gans, 2008, The impact of uncertain intellectual property rights on the market for ideas: evidence from patent grant delays, Manage. Sci., 54, 982, 10.1287/mnsc.1070.0814 Gans, 2003, The product market and the market for "ideas": commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs, Res. Policy, 32, 333, 10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00103-8 Gaudry, 2012, The lone inventor: low success rates and common errors associated with pro-se patent applications, PLoS One, 7, 10.1371/journal.pone.0033141 Geuna, 2006, University patenting and its effects on academic research: the emerging European evidence, Res. Policy, 35, 790, 10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.005 Granovetter, 1985, Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness, Am. J. Sociol., 91, 481, 10.1086/228311 Gulati, 1995, Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances, Acad. Manag. J., 38, 85, 10.2307/256729 Gulbrandsen, 2011, Introduction to the special section: heterogeneity and university-industry relations, Res. Policy, 40, 1, 10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.007 Hall, 2001, The NBER patent citation data file: lessons, insights and methodological tools (No. w8498), Bur. Econ. Res. Bull. Aging Health Hegde, 2017, Patent publication and the market for ideas, Manage. Sci., 64, 652, 10.1287/mnsc.2016.2622 Hellmann, 2007, The role of patents for bridging the science to market gap, J. Econ. Behav. Organ., 63, 624, 10.1016/j.jebo.2006.05.013 Howells, 2006, Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation, Res. Policy, 35, 715, 10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005 Iacus, 2011, Causal inference without balance checking: coarsened exact matching, Political Anal., 20, 1, 10.1093/pan/mpr013 Kenney, 2009, Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the current university invention ownership model, Res. Policy, 38, 1407, 10.1016/j.respol.2009.07.007 Kleinbaum, 2012, Evaluating the proportional hazards assumption, 161 Klerkx, 2008, Balancing multiple interests: embedding innovation intermediation in the agricultural knowledge infrastructure, Technovation, 28, 364, 10.1016/j.technovation.2007.05.005 Kotha, 2013, Bridging the mutual knowledge gap: coordination and the commercialization of university science, Acad. Manag. J., 56, 498, 10.5465/amj.2010.0948 Lamoreaux, 1999, Inventors, firms, and the market for technology in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, 19 Lamoreaux, 2002 Lamoreaux, 2013, Patent alchemy: the market for technology in US history, Bus. Hist. Rev., 87, 3, 10.1017/S0007680513000123 Mitchell, 1991, Using academic technology: transfer methods and licensing incidence in the commercialization of American diagnostic imaging equipment research, 1954–1988, Res. Policy, 20, 203, 10.1016/0048-7333(91)90052-R Motohashi, 2005, University–industry collaborations in Japan: the role of new technology-based firms in transforming the National Innovation System, Res. Policy, 34, 583, 10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.001 Motohashi, 2007, China’s innovation system reform and growing industry and science linkages, Res. Policy, 36, 1251, 10.1016/j.respol.2007.02.023 Mowery, 2001, The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980, Res. Policy, 30, 99, 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00100-6 Mowery, 2002, Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh–Dole act in the United States, Res. Policy, 31, 399, 10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00116-0 O’Kane, 2015, University technology transfer offices: the search for identity to build legitimacy, Res. Policy, 44, 421, 10.1016/j.respol.2014.08.003 Owen-Smith, 2003, The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: assessing the importance of experience and connectivity, Res. Policy, 32, 1695, 10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00045-3 Perkmann, 2013, Academic engagement and commercialisation: a review of the literature on university–industry relations, Res. Policy, 42, 423, 10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007 Popp, 2004, Time in purgatory: examining the grant lag for US patent applications, Top. Econ. Anal. Policy, 4 Powell, 2007, Innovation and emulation: lessons from american universities in selling private rights to public knowledge, Minerva, 45, 121, 10.1007/s11024-007-9034-2 Puranam, 2009, Integrating acquired capabilities: when structural integration is (un) necessary, Organ. Sci., 20, 313, 10.1287/orsc.1090.0422 Reitzig, 2009, Value appropriation as an organizational capability: the case of IP protection through patents, Strateg. Manage. J., 30, 765, 10.1002/smj.761 Sampat, 2006, Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: the world before and after Bayh-Dole, Res. Policy, 35, 772, 10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.009 Sampat, 1999, The Emergence and Standardization of University Technology Transfer Offices: a case study of institutional change Sampat, 2010, Examining patent examination, Stanf. Technol. Law Rev., 2 Schatz, 2009, New chief of patent office takes aim at a massive backlog, Wall Street J. Sengupta, 2017, Choice of Structure, Business Model and Portfolio: organizational models of knowledge transfer offices in British universities, Br. J. Manag., 28, 687, 10.1111/1467-8551.12224 Shane, 2002, Selling university technology: patterns from MIT, Manage. Sci., 48, 122, 10.1287/mnsc.48.1.122.14281 Siegel, 2001, Organizational Issues in University-Industry Technology Transfer: an overview of the symposium issue, J. Technol. Transf., 26, 5, 10.1023/A:1007823925996 Siegel, 2007, Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: performance and policy implications, Oxford Rev. Econ. Policy, 23, 640, 10.1093/oxrep/grm036 Siegel, 2003, Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study, Res. Policy, 32, 27, 10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00196-2 Siegel, 2015, University technology transfer offices, licensing, and start-ups Siegel, 2008, Assessing the relative performance of university technology transfer in the US and the UK: a stochastic distance function approach, Econ. Innov. New Technol., 17, 717, 10.1080/10438590701785769 Singh, 2011, Recruiting for ideas: how firms exploit the prior inventions of new hires, Manage. Sci., 57, 129, 10.1287/mnsc.1100.1253 Sorenson, 2006, Social structure and exchange: self-confirming dynamics in Hollywood, Adm. Sci. Q., 51, 560, 10.2189/asqu.51.4.560 Srikanth, 2011, Integrating distributed work: comparing task design, communication, and tacit coordination mechanisms, Strateg. Manage. J., 32, 849, 10.1002/smj.908 Stern, 2004, Do scientists pay to be scientists?, Manage. Sci., 50, 835, 10.1287/mnsc.1040.0241 Tartari, 2014, In good company: the influence of peers on industry engagement by academic scientists, Res. Policy, 43, 1189, 10.1016/j.respol.2014.02.003 Thursby, 2002, Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing, Res. Policy, 31, 109, 10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00160-8 Thursby, 2007, University licensing, Oxford Rev. Econ. Policy, 23, 620, 10.1093/oxrep/grm031 Uzzi, 1997, Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness, Adm. Sci. Q., 42, 35, 10.2307/2393808 Villani, 2017, How intermediary organizations facilitate university–industry technology transfer: a proximity approach, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 114, 86, 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.06.004 Wagner, 2014, Overcoming localization of knowledge—the role of professional service firms, Strateg. Manage. J., 35, 1671, 10.1002/smj.2174 Werking, 2012 Wright, 2008, Mid-range universities’ linkages with industry: knowledge types and the role of intermediaries, Res. Policy, 37, 1205, 10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.021 Yusuf, 2008, Intermediating knowledge exchange between universities and businesses, Res. Policy, 37, 1167, 10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.011