Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Patents
  • Published:

Patents

Comparing efficiency of patent production between US institutions using a hybrid NIH–USPTO dataset

Nature Biotechnology volume 41, pages 1062–1070 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

A database that links patents to NIH awards enables evaluation of key milestones along the research translation pathway.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Total NIH funding comparisons.
Fig. 2: Total NIH funding versus TR.
Fig. 3: TR versus facilities and administrative cost rates.
Fig. 4: Engineering unit budget versus TR.
Fig. 5: PI–patent histogram.
Fig. 6: Density of super-producers at each institution versus TR.
Fig. 7: Simplified view of the summary diagram of the master link table.

Data availability

All data and materials used in analysis are publicly available from the sources listed in the ‘Material and methods’ section.

References

  1. Agrawal, A. & Henderson, R. Manage. Sci. 48, 44–60 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ambos, T. C. J. Manage. Stud. 45, 1424–1447 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Auerswald, P. E. & Branscomb, L. M. J. Technol. Transf. 28, 227–239 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Huang, W. L. Sci. Public Policy 38, 463–479 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ponomariov, B. J. Technol. Transf. 38, 749–767 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rossini, A. Bridging the technological “valley of death”. pwc.no, https://www.pwc.no/en/bridging-the-technological-valley-of-death.html (11 June 2018).

  7. Rai, A. K. & Sampat, B. N. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 953–956 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Thursby, J. G. & Thursby, M. C. Manage. Sci. 48, 90–104 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Drivas, K. J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 40, 45–63 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Griliches, Z. J. Econ. Lit. 28, 1661–1707 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Salter, A. J. & Martin, B. R. Res. Policy 30, 509–532 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lach, S. & Schankerman, M. RAND J. Econ. 39, 403–433 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Audretsch, D. B. & Kayalar-Erdem. D. in Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research (eds Alvarez, S. A. et al.) 97–118 (Springer, 2005).

  14. Carayol, N. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 16, 119–138 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Stephan, P. E. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 16, 71–99 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. US National Institutes of Health. Frequently asked questions. nih.gov, https://report.nih.gov/faqs (accessed 01 July 2023).

  17. US Government Accountability Office. Technology Transfer: Reporting Requirements for Federally Sponsored Invention Need Revision (GAO, 1999).

  18. Franzoni, C. Ind. Corp. Change 18, 671–699 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wright, B. D., Drivas, K., Lei, Z. & Merrill, S. A. Nature 507, 297–299 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Brockhaus, R. & Horwitz, P. in Entrepreneurship: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management (ed. Krueger, N.) 260–279 (Routledge, 2002).

  21. Mills, A. Fix science, don’t just fund it. innovationfrontier.org, https://innovationfrontier.org/fix-science-dont-just-fund-it/ (16 September 2021).

  22. Hobin, J. A. et al. J. Transl. Med. 10, 72 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Bercovitz, J. & Feldman, M. Organ. Sci. 19, 69–89 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bican, P. M. et al. J. Knowl. Manage. 21, 1384–1405 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. US Government Accountability Office. National Institutes of Health: Better Data will Improve Understanding of Federal Contributions to Drug Development (GAO, 2023).

  26. Mowery, D. C. & Ziedonis, A. A. The Geographic Reach of Market and Non-Market Channels of Technology Transfer: Comparing Citations and Licenses of University Patents (Working Paper 8568) (NBER, 2001).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank M. Friedlander for his review of an early draft of this manuscript; A. Tegge for her assistance in preparing the statistical analysis portion of the manuscript; and L. LaConte for her guidance with this project. Funding was provided by NIH grant R01HL056728 (R.G.), NIH grant R01HL141855 (R.G.) and NIH grant R35HL161237-01 (R.G.).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, VA, USA

    Rocco M. DiSanto & Robert G. Gourdie

  2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

    Mark Van Dyke

  3. Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

    Michael J. Barker

  4. Fralin Biomedical Research Institute, Virginia Tech Carilion, Roanoke, VA, USA

    Robert G. Gourdie

  5. Department of Biomedical Engineering and Mechanics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA

    Robert G. Gourdie

Authors
  1. Rocco M. DiSanto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark Van Dyke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael J. Barker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert G. Gourdie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

R.D., R.G. and M.V.D. conceptualized the work. R.D., R.G., M.V.D. and M.B. contributed to the methodology and investigation. R.D., R.G. and M.V.D. generated visualizations. R.G. and M.V.D. acquired funding. R.D., R.G. and M.V.D. administered and supervised the work. R.D. wrote the original draft, and R.G., M.V.D. and M.B. reviewed and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert G. Gourdie.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Table 1

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

DiSanto, R.M., Van Dyke, M., Barker, M.J. et al. Comparing efficiency of patent production between US institutions using a hybrid NIH–USPTO dataset. Nat Biotechnol 41, 1062–1070 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-023-01890-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-023-01890-w

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing