Surveyed impact of intellectual property training in STEM education on innovation, research, and development

O'Sullivan, S. et al. Article — Published Version Surveyed impact of intellectual property training in STEM education on innovation, research, and development The Journal of World Intellectual Property Provided in Cooperation with: John Wiley & Sons Suggested Citation: O'Sullivan, S. et al. (2020) : Surveyed impact of intellectual property training in STEM education on innovation, research, and development, The Journal of World Intellectual Property, ISSN 1747-1796, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, Vol. 23, Iss. 5-6, pp. 658-678, https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12167 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/230274 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ J World Intellect Prop. 2020;23:658–678.658 | wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jwip DOI: 10.1111/jwip.12167 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Surveyed impact of intellectual property training in STEM education on innovation, research, and development S. O'Sullivan 1 |Michael Friebe 2 |W. R. Tonti 3 | Margaret Hartnett 4 |Manuel Castro 5 |M. I. Pozzo 6 |Y. Nilsiam 7 1 Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Münster, Münster, Germany 2 Institute of Medical Engineering, Otto‐von‐Guericke‐University Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany 3 IEEE Future Directions, Washington, District of Columbia 4 Hartnett Innovations, London, United Kingdom 5 Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Industrial Engineering School, Spanish National University for Distance Education (UNED), Madrid, Spain 6 National Scientific and Technical Research Council of Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina 7 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan Correspondence O'Sullivan S., Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Münster, Münster 48149, Germany. Email: [email protected] Abstract This paper analyzes the findings of an international survey questionnaire to which responses were received from over 500 members from different technical societies of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). The survey is primarily intended to uncover members' perceptions of patent filing and research‐driven innovation. Our thesis statement is twofold. First, the introduction of basic intellectual property (IP) courses to university Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics curricula would teach students valuable basics of IP and associated issues, technology protection; and possibly stimulate novel/innovative R&D outcomes. Second, studying relevant active/lapsed/expired patent documents could provide stimulating input for ongoing academic research. After analyzing the survey results we conclude that IP coursework could be a catalyst for students and researchers to explore patent opportunities related to their specific interests. The resulting knowledge would further enable researchers to prepare more compelling funding applications. In our experience, IEEE conference publications are often closely aligned with inventions to solve pressing --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2020 The Authors. The Journal of World Intellectual Property published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd technical problems. Conference papers typically comprise of cutting‐edge research/industry findings, with a short time between paper submission and presentation. Furthermore, conference organizers choose themes representing the forefront of technologies that often lead to inventions. These could fuel patent developments, but academic research environments often provide little if any incentives for academic researchers to prepare and file patent applications. Indeed, the attainment of high impact journal publications remains the primary metric by which research activity is judged and future academic tenure achieved. KEYWORDS academic patenting, intellectual property courses, technology transfer, university patenting 1|INTRODUCTION 1.1 |Overview This study focuses on intellectual property (IP) awareness in engineering, physics, and associated educational sectors. To this end, we designed a survey questionnaire to test Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) members' general understanding of patents and research‐driven innovation. From this, we identified optimal intersections between research, invention, patent filing, and existing developments. Setting the backdrop to the survey and touching on a number of the points raised in the survey, the first part of this paper includes a short overview of various historical definitions of innovation and the role of patenting therein. This is followed by a brief discussion of patenting in academia, examining aspects of IP inclusion in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) curricula, institutional drivers for patenting together with drivers and impediments to patenting by individual academics. We then discuss the survey, its methodology, results, and conclusions. In support of this discussion, Appendix Acontains the results of the survey, while Supporting Information Appendix B to the survey contains supplementary materials based on an aggregated view of written comments received in the survey. With this in mind, our thesis statement is twofold. First, the introduction of basic IP courses to university STEM curricula would teach students valuable basics of IP and associated issues, technology protection and possibly stimulate novel/innovative R&D outcomes. Second, studying relevant active/lapsed/expired patent documents could provide stimulating input for ongoing academic research. We recognize the distinction between research and innovation, but there can be crossovers between the two domains. While IP is conventionally viewed solely in terms of its contribution to the innovation domain, in some instances the process of applying for patent protection (e.g., reviewing prior art disclosed in or cited against published patent documents) can lead an inventor to new ideas, principles, and technologies that drive their subsequent research. O'SULLIVAN ET AL. | 659 1.2 |Aims of this paper Large gaps exist in knowledge and in the published literature at the intersection of innovation, research and development (IRD). Nevertheless, some literature suggests that academic STEM Departments and Law Schools with integrated degree programs could produce a highly skilled IRD workforce (Srivastava, 2013). With more work needed to be done on this subject, our survey aims to assess: (a) novel outcomes in STEM research (e.g., theses, projects, papers etc.); and (b) patent exploitation in STEM research. We use the outcomes of these studies to consider the need for optional or mandatory IP courses in STEM under‐graduate and postgraduate degree curricula to foster an IRD ecosystem. 2|BACKGROUND 2.1 |Innovation While working as a patent examiner in Switzerland's Patent Office (Galison, 2003), much of Albert Einstein's role entailed examining patent specifications (or patent applications more broadly). It was his exposure to the variety and complexity of inventions for which patent protection was sought, that ignited his interest in and propelled him along the road of innovation. There are many different and overlapping definitions of innovation. In 1911, Schumpeter defined innovation as “new combinations”of new or existing knowledge, resources, equipment, and other resources; and as a specific social activity undertaken in the economic sphere for a commercial purpose (Schumpeter, 2003). This definition has been followed by many others over the years. For example, Thompson states: “Innovation is the generation, acceptance and implementation of new ideas, processes products or services”(Thompson, 1965). Kimberly describes innovation in terms of its different forms: “There are three stages of innovation: innovation as a process, innovation as a discrete item including, products, programs or services; and innovation as an attribute of organizations”(Kimberly, 1981). Drucker defines innovation as “the specific tool of entrepreneurs, the means by which they exploit change as an opportunity for a different business or a different service”(Drucker, 1985). Similarly, Damanpour describes innovation as a means of changing an organization, either as a response to changes in the external environment or as a pre‐emptive action to influence the environment (Damanpour, 1996). In their efforts to establish an integrated perspective of innovation, Baregheh et al. (2009) identified 60 definitions of innovation. However, a common thread among these definitions is innovation's commercial goal. It is this feature which distinguishes innovation from academic research whose main goal is knowledge creation. 2.2 |Patents Notwithstanding its many definitions, research has shown that patents are closely linked to innovation. Indeed, patent counts are one of the most commonly used proxies for innovation (Jaffe & Trajtenberg, 2002; Kogan, Papanikolaou, Seru, & Stoffman, 2017). For many companies (and most especially technology‐based companies), IP (including patents) is critical to their business. Indeed, patents are often a key element of a company's Innovation Management system (i.e., the process within a company/organization that drives the creation of new ideas and concepts with a business value; Williams, 2013) that enables a company to maintain its competitive edge over its rivals in the marketplace. A patent is a government‐issued time and geographically limited monopoly right. A patent does not give its owner the right to practice an invention. Instead, a patent gives its owner the right to exclude others from making, using or selling the claimed invention; and in many cases, it also gives the owner the right to exclude others from 660 | O'SULLIVAN ET AL. importing the invention. This exclusionary right is limited to the country in which the patent is granted and for the lifetime of the patent, which in many cases is 20 years from the earliest filing date of the application for the patent. In the United States, there are two classifications of patents, viz., “Utility”and “Design.”In general terms, a “utility patent”protects the functional aspects of an article (or the way it is used; U.S.C., 2011: Article 35 U.S.C. 101) whereas a “design patent”protects the ornamental aspects of an article (i.e., the way an article looks; U.S.C., 2011: Article 35 U.S.C. 171). Both design and utility patents may be obtained on an article if the invention resides in both its functional/utility aspects and its ornamental aspects. This paper and the survey it discusses are focussed on utility patents. Utility patents protect new, useful and nonobvious inventions comprising patentable subject‐matter, wherein the categories of patentable subject matter consist of process, machine, manufacture, and composition of matter (U.S.C, 2011: Article 35 U.S.C. 101). An invention's novelty is assessed relative to the background of what has come before. This background information is called “prior art.”For an invention to be novel it must not have been patented, described in a printed publication or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or (b) described in a patent or a patent application filed before the effective filing date of the invention.(U.S.C., 2011: Article 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)). Prior art also covers pop up prior art which includes U.S. patents, published U.S. patent applications, and published Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) applications designating the United States, that were filed before the effective filing date of the application and published after the effective filing date of filing of the application (U.S.C., 2011: Article 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)). These become available as prior art as of the date that they were “effectively filed.” When an invention is novel over the prior art, but the inventor has merely made an obvious modification to the existing body of knowledge, he/she will not be awarded a patent. More specifically, an invention is not patentable if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains (U.S.C., 2011: Article 35 U.S.C. 103). However, it should be noted that “a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art”(United States Supreme Court Cases, 2007:KSR International Co v Teleflex Inc 550 U.S. 398, 2007). 2.3 |Patent/IP courses In this paper, we investigate researcher's perceptions as to whether the introduction of basic IP courses to university STEM curricula would teach students valuable basics of IP and associated issues, technology protection and possibly stimulate novel/innovative R&D outcomes. The survey discussed in this paper does not prove that the introduction of IP into a STEM curriculum would produce these desirable results. Rather the survey explores other researchers' views on the topic. However, it is taken into account that views in themselves are not proof. In support of this, we note that there are several examples where IP knowledge is already part of the teaching curriculum (Clarysse, Mosey, & Lambecht, 2009; Friebe & Traub, 2015; Srivastava, 2013). In connection with this, we note that entrepreneurial activities (which are often driven by and hugely dependent on IP) are receiving increasing attention in technology teaching. 2.4 |IRD in the university sector Patenting has not traditionally been a focus for many research institutions and Universities. However, in recent years these bodies have come under political pressure to demonstrate and improve their impact on national O'SULLIVAN ET AL. | 661 wellbeing, with focus primarily on economic growth, job creation, and competitiveness, but also to public health and security. Universities receive significant public resources for research and governments increasingly question the return on this investment. Universities are required to demonstrate and improve the economic and societal impact of its research. For example, the EC Horizon 2020 research and innovation funding program requires funding applicants to clearly identify the technological, economic and/or societal impacts of their research; and to include a dissemination and exploitation strategy of the results (e.g., including arrangements for Freedom to Operate searching; IP harvesting and licensing; and the establishment of spin‐out companies) in their funding applications (Scherer, 2018). More broadly, universities are increasingly required to make their research more attuned to the needs of industry and to more effectively link their research to commercial applications. As part of this trend, policymakers have encouraged publicly funded research to smooth the transfer of results to industry by establishing proprietary rights over the research. However, university patenting activity varies widely. Only a small number of Universities are responsible for the vast majority of patenting activity undertaken by the sector in the United States. Indeed, only five individual universities, MIT, Stanford, University of Wisconsin, University of Texas, and Caltech were granted more than 100 patents in 2012. In keeping with the principle of academic freedom underpinning academic institutional autonomy (Zgaga, 2012), the technological direction and focus of patenting activity of academic institutions is essentially driven by the invention disclosures submitted by academics and researchers. Thus, in considering the institutional advantages of patenting, special consideration must be given to the potential benefits of patenting to academic researchers, which include (Ouellette & Weires, 2020). 2.4.1 |Financial benefits Academic researchers can financially benefit from University patent royalties schemes wherein the university shares patent royalties with inventors. However, in practice, only a few Universities raise significant income from licensing their patents. In 2012, the top 5% of U.S. earners (eight U.S. universities) took 50% of the total licensing income of the U.S. university system; and the top 10% (16 U.S. universities) took nearly three‐quarters of the system's income (Valdiva, 2013). Thus, financial remuneration to researchers from royalty sharing schemes is likely to be quite limited. In connection with this, we note that the literature regarding the significance of financial remuneration as a driver of patenting by academic researchers is quite mixed. In particular, Ouellette and Tutte note the absence of compelling empirical evidence in the United States that increasing the share of royalties to university researchers has a significant effect on university licensing income (Ouellette & Tutte, 2020). By contrast, Hvide and Jones found that Norway's switch from inventor ownership (the “professor's privilege”) to university ownership (with one‐third of net income shared with inventors) was followed by a 50% decline in both entrepreneurship and patent counts (Hvide & Jones, 2018). 2.4.2 |Reputational effect Even without substantial royalties payments, some individuals value patents because their formal governmental certification of the presence of a novel and nonobvious idea, together with the identification of the person as the inventor thereof. Thus, it is increasingly common for patents to be listed on a professor's or researcher's curriculum vitae (Rantanen & Jack, 2019) Notwithstanding the above, the extent to which individual researchers have engaged in patenting activities has been historically mixed. Of the many reasons for this, we note the commonly held belief that patenting impedes publication and open science more generally. However, Calderini and Franzoni's study showed that patenting is 662 | O'SULLIVAN ET AL. likely to produce a temporary increase in publications, while it does not discourage diffusion in open science, although in some cases the publication of results may be delayed (Calderini & Franzoni, 2004). Furthermore, a survey conducted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science's project on Science and Intellectual Property in the Public Interest found that 62% of IP creators who had attempted to protect it with a patent had also disseminated the technology in some way: 88% of academic respondents had disseminated their technologies either through publishing, informal sharing, or both methods (rather than via licensing) (Hansen, Brewster, Asher, & Kisielewski, 2006). More important perhaps, a fundamental disconnect has been noted between institutional technology transfer activities and incentives to faculty members in terms of merit raises, tenure, and career advancement (Sanberg et al., 2014). In particular, the authors note that beyond the monetary benefit of licensing, which is small in most cases, patenting offers little or no benefit to a faculty member's merit raises, tenure, and career advancement. 3|SURVEY 3.1 |Data collection and methods The aim of the survey was to reveal the perceptions of IEEE members regarding patents and research‐driven innovations. To this end, we initially developed our survey questionnaire, and then tested it on a world‐wide group of beta‐testers from the STEM disciplines. The beta testers included university staff (professors, research deans, faculty directors) and industry professionals. Comments and feedback received from the beta‐testers was used to improve and refine the survey questionnaire. For clarity and brevity, the resulting survey questionnaire will be referred to henceforth as the Refined Survey Questionnaire. To ensure the robustness and independence of the survey analysis, the beta testers' responses were excluded from the results of the Refined Survey. Referring to Table 1, the Refined Survey Questionnaire was then distributed worldwide using the member email lists of various IEEE technical Societies (IEEE, 2020). An announcement about the Refined Survey was included in the Societies' e‐newsletters. The announcement informed readers that a study was being performed about the introduction of new patent courses in bachelor and graduate degrees of STEM and preferred topic‐selection in STEM research (i.e., the question/topic that a student or professor chose for the student's thesis/project). Accompanying this, the announcement also included a URL link to the Refined Survey Questionnaire page. The Refined Survey was anonymous insofar as responders were not required to specifically identify themselves. However, to facilitate the survey analysis, responders were requested to provide some basic profile information in accordance with the questions set out in Appendix A.1: Tables I–IX. Further questions in the Refined Survey TABLE 1 Survey methodology details Data collection started: April 15, 2018 Data collection ended: January 19, 2019 Population: 51,213 worldwide members from the following IEEE societies: •Electron Devices Society (EDS)—10,355 •Power Electronics Society (PELS)—9,873 •Photonics Society—6,252 •Microwave Theory and Techniques Society (MTTS)—10,917 •Education Society (EdSoc)—3,370 •Aerospace and Electronic Systems Society (AESS)—4,941 •Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Society (SMC)—5,505 Response: 522 O'SULLIVAN ET AL. | 663 Questionnaire included compulsory questions (see Appendix A.2: Questions 1–9) and optional questions (see Appendix A.2: Question 10). Responders were also given the opportunity to provide free‐style explanatory comments and details (e.g., web links and project titles for their supervised research—see Supporting Information Appendix B) to support their answers. Table 1 3.1.1 |Definitions relayed to responders To ensure clarity of the Refined Survey Questionnaire and to assist responders in responding thereto, several defined terms were included in the Refined Survey Questionnaire as follows: 3.1.2 |Information relayed to responders The survey made responders aware of the following details: (1) Some Patent Office Databases provide patent images and text files available online to the public (e.g., U.S. Patent Office USPTO.gov); (2) Patents expire usually after 20 years from the date of the first filing; (3) Most patent offices require patent holders to make periodic payments to maintain patents once they are granted. If the patent holder does not make the payment, the patent and the protection it confers lapses; (4) Certain patent search websites (USPTO.gov or Google Patents [advanced search feature]) allow users to look for patents that are 20 years old or older, for example, by setting a T‐20 year period; (5) Michigan Tech created an online search tool for all lapsed patents less than 20 years old in the USPTO database; (6) Even if a patent is lapsed or expired, the inventor may nevertheless have filed other similar related patents; (7) During an economic downturn firms may cut back on their budgets for Patent Maintenance fees thereby causing their patents/patent applications to be abandoned; and (8) Some patent offices are suggesting that they might increase their Maintenance fees (by as much as 55%) and there are proposals to increase the frequency of Maintenance fee payments. These factors could cause an increased number of lapsed patents. TABLE 2 Definitions relayed to responders “Active patents”“Patents younger than 20 years for which maintenance payments have been made” “Expired Patents”“Patents older than 20 years” “Intellectual Property (IP)”“A term that includes Patents/Trademarks/Design/Copyright”; “Lapsed”or Abandoned” patents “Patents younger than 20 years for which maintenance payments have not been made”; “Open‐source”“Any software or hardware whose source code or design is publicly available for the online community to inspect, modify, enhance, study, distribute, make, or sell”; “Research”“A task whereby one acquires a deeper knowledge through investigation, testing, analysis or exploration of challenges and problems. In this case, research can include projects, theses/dissertations, case studies, reports, papers or assignments” “STEM”“Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics” 664 | O'SULLIVAN ET AL. 4|ANALYSIS OF KEY FINDINGS AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM THE REFINED SURVEY Appendix Ato this paper contains profiles of the survey responders and the results derived from the received responses to the Refined Survey Questionnaire. Supporting Information Appendix B to this paper contains the Supporting Information comprising the entire body of free‐style written comments provided by some of the survey responders. 4.1 |Profiles of the responders (Appendix A.1) Referring to Appendix A.1, the profile responses highlight that there is a strong academic research background among the responders. For example, in Appendix A.1: Table VII, 72% of the responders' highest level of experience in Higher Education research or teaching included: professorship, lecturing, or instructing. Moreover, Appendix A.1: Table IV indicates that 70% of the responders had experience supervising a thesis/ dissertation. Similarly, Appendix A.1: Table V indicates that 52% had experience serving on a doctoral committee. We take into consideration that responders who did not supervise a thesis/dissertation, may have supervised other types of research tasks/assessments, such as case studies, assignments, and so forth (see Section 3.1.1 definition of “research”relayed to the responders). 4.2 |Answers (Appendix A.2) and commentary (Supporting Information Appendix B) received in response to the questions of the Refined Survey Questionnaire Referring to Appendix A.2, Questions 1–4 are fact‐finding questions, while Questions 5–10 are opinion‐finding questions. Many of the responders also provided comments explaining or elaborating on their answers to some of the questions. With respect to Questions 1–3, three lists of project titles/web links were volunteered by the responders (see Tables I–III in Supporting Information Appendix B). The following is a breakdown and interpretation of the responses to the survey questions and their related commentary. Question 1. What is your greater expectation when selecting research topics for students? Question 1 shows that 46% of the responders who selected a research topic for students stated that they expect students to pursue novel/innovative outcomes, while 37% stated that they expect students to develop new research skills, and 17% stated that they had never selected a research topic for students. It should be noted that the answers are likely to be at least partly dependent on the academic level of the relevant project(s), since it is a qualification requirement for a PhD candidate, for example, that they make a novel or inventive contribution to the state of knowledge embodied in the project area. Question 2. Have any of your selected research topics led to students filing for patent protection? The majority of responders stated that none of their selected research topics had led to filing of a patent application (26% Yes, 57% No, and 17% never selected a research topic for students). However, this result is perhaps somewhat unsurprising bearing in mind the academic profile of the respondents and that (as mentioned in the introduction to this paper), delivery of a high impact journal publication is still valued higher for an academic CV than a patent/patent application. O'SULLIVAN ET AL. | 665 shows their growing importance as an information source”(Asche, 2017). Furthermore, many research funding programs require funding proposals to include a thorough analysis of existing technologies/products/services/ patents and discussions about how the public monies invested in the research will lead to economic (and/or social or other) benefits. However, bearing in the dual legal and technical aspects of a patent/patent application, we recognize that patent literature can be challenging to read (a criticism also raised by some of the responders in Table IV from Supporting Information Appendix B). However, the purpose of reading patent documents is not confined to informing future research projects or funding proposals. Thus, a more detailed exploration of the motivations behind the results to Question 4 is an important piece of future work. Finally, we note that the survey was primarily conducted in the field of electrical engineering, that is, IEEE technical Society members are the survey responders. Therefore, future surveys should include respondents from other fields, such as the chemical and life‐sciences. 6|CONCLUSION The present survey demonstrates a distinct appetite within the researcher community for the inclusion of basic IP courses to university STEM curricula, which would teach students valuable basics of IP and associated issues, technology protection and possibly stimulate novel/innovative R&D outcomes. The survey results also suggest that while researchers read patents/patent applications in the course of their own work, in the main, they do not believe their students do the same in relation to their selected research topics. Indeed, nearly half the respondents indicated that they believe the introduction of basic IP modules to STEM course curriculum would enhance novel/ innovative outcomes in research leading to development. We contend that the inclusion of patent training in STEM bachelor and graduate degree curricula, could ignite interest in the use of the potential research information residing in active/lapsed/expired patents to better inform their own research interests and support the preparation of more compelling grant applications and thereby secure increased institutional and personal research funding. We further note that many of the criticisms of the patent system raised by the survey respondents align closely with several very active areas of ongoing debate and research within the legal and economics communities; and would hope to see greater participation of STEM researchers in those debates. However, we also note the barriers to patent awareness and engagement in the researcher community, including lack of incentivization for academic researchers to submit invention disclosures for patenting; and the difficulties in reading and interpreting patent documents. In connection with this, we also recognize that there may be multiple reasons for researchers to read patents/patent applications. Thus, we would recommend that students and researchers are taught how to read patent documents, but that any such training should include a clear articulation of the purpose of the training coupled with a close alignment of the content and focus of the training with the articulated purpose. ORCID S. O'Sullivan http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0749-9601 REFERENCES Asche, G. (2017). 80% of technical information found only in patents—Is there proof of this? World Patent Information,48, 16–28. Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., & Sambrook, S. (2009). Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation. Management Decision, 47(8), 1323–1339. Calderini, M., & Franzoni, C. (2004). Is academic patenting detrimental to high quality research? An empirical analysis of the relationship between scientific careers and patent applications. KITeS Working Papers 162, KITeS, Centre for Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy. 672 | O'SULLIVAN ET AL. Cao, S., Lei, Z., & Wright, B. (2014). Speed of patent protection, rate of technical knowledge obsolescence and optimal patent strategy: Evidence from innovation patents in the US and China. Job Market Paper, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California Berkeley Clarysse, B., Mosey, S., & Lambecht, I. (2009). New trends in technology management education: A view from Europe. Academy of Management Learning and Education,8(3), 427–443. Damanpour, F. (1996). Organizational complexity and innovation: Developing and testing multiple contingency models. Management Science,42(5), 693–716. Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles. New York: Harper and Row. Farre‐Mensa, J., Hegde, D., & Ljungqvist, A. (2016). The bright side of patents, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper Series Friebe, M., & Traub, J. (2015). Image guided surgery innovation with graduate students—A new lecture format. Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering,1(1), 475–479. https://doi.org/10.1515/cdbme-2015-0114 Galison, P. (2003). Einstein's clock's, Poincaré's maps. New York: W. W. Norton. Hansen, S., Brewster, A., Asher, J., & Kisielewski, M. (2006). The effects of patenting in the AAAS scientific community (American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC). Retrieved from www.wipo.int/ip-outreach/ en/tools/research/details.jsp?id=174 Hvide, H. K., & Jones, B. F. (2018). University Innovation and the Professor's Privilege. American Economic Review,108(2), 1860–1898. IEEE. (2020). List of IEEE technical societies. Retrieved from https://www.ieee.org/membership-catalog/societies.html?N= 4294925302 Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2002). Patents, citations, and innovations: A window on the knowledge economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Khanna, N. (2019). Patent quality: Does one size fit all? 4iP Council, January 2019. Available from SSRN: https://ssrn.com/ abstract=3328123 Kimberly, J. R. (1981). Managerial innovation. In P. C. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Hand book of organization design. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Klemperer, P. (1990). How broad should the scope of patent protection be? The Rand Journal of Economics,21(1), 113–130. Kogan, L., Papanikolaou, D., Seru, A., & Stoffman, N. (2017). Technological innovation, resource allocation, and growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics,132(2), 665–712. Langinier, C., & Moschini, G. (2002). The economics of patents: An overview. CARD Working Papers, 2‐2002, Iowa State University. Lester, S., & Zhu, H. (2019). Rethinking the length of patent terms. American University International Law Review,34(4), 787–806. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr/vol34/iss4/4 O'Donohue, T., Scotchmer, S., & Thisse, J. (1998). Patent breadth, patent life and the pace of technological progress. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy,7(1), 1–32. Ouellette, L. L., & Tutte, A. (2020). How do patent incentives affect university researchers. International Review of Law and Economics,61(2020), 105883. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3505030 Ouellette, L. L., & Weires, R. (2020). University patenting: Is private law serving public values. Michican State Law Review (forthcoming) Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No 537. Available at https://ssrn.com/abstract= 3443692 Pammolli, F., & Rossi, M. A. (2005). Intellectual property, technological regimes and market dynamics. Economia E Politica Industriale,2(2). Rantanen, J., & Jack, S. E. (2019). Patents as credentials. Washington and Lee law review,76, 311. https://ssrn.com/abstract= 3013780 Roin, B. N. (2014). The case for tailoring patent awards based on the time‐to‐market of inventions. UCLA Law Review,61, 672–759. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2235354 Sanberg, P. R., Gharib, M., Harker, P. T., Kaler, E. W., Marchase, R. B., Sands, T. D., …Sarkar, S. (2014). Changing the academic culture: Valuing patents and commercialization toward tenure and career advancement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA,111(18), 6542–6547. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1404094111 Scherer, F. M. (1972). Nordhaus' theory of optimal patent life: A geometric reinterpretation. American Economic Review, 62(3), 422–427. Scherer, J. (2018). Why is strategic IP management important for successful horizon 2020 projects? Retrieved from eurice.eu/ news/2018/01/15/why-is-strategic-ip-management-important-for-successful-horizon-2020-projects/ Schultz, M., & Madigan, K. (2016). The long wait for innovation: The global patent pendency problem, centre for the protection of intellectual property. George Mason University. Retrieved from https://sls.gmu.edu/cpip/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/ 2016/10/Schultz-Madigan-The-Long-Wait-for-Innovation-The-Global-Patent-Pendency-Problem.pdf O'SULLIVAN ET AL. | 673 Schumpeter, J. (2003). Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. In J. Backhaus (Ed.), Joseph Alois Schumpeter. The European Heritage in Economics and the Social Sciences (Vol. 1) Boston, MA: Springer. Srivastava, M. (2013). Introduction of intellectual property courses in STEM curriculum. 2013 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC), Princeton, NJ pp. 1–4. 10.1109/ISECon.2013.6525228 Thompson, V. A. (1965). Bureaucracy and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,10,1–20. Thurow, L. (1997). Needed: A new system of intellectual property rights. Harvard Business Review,95,94–103. http://psu. chuckthomas.net/content/New%20System%20of%20IP%20Rights.pdf United States Code (U.S.C.). (2011). Patent laws. Retrieved from https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/e8r9#/e8r9/ d0e300730.html United States Supreme Court cases. (2007). KSR v. Teleflex: Decision by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the issue of obviousness as applied to patent claims. Volume 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727. Valdiva, W. D. (2013). University start‐ups: Critical for improving technology transfer. Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings,19(12), 1–22. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Valdivia_Tech-Transfer_v29_No- Embargo.pdf Williams, H. (2013). Intellectual property rights and innovation: Evidence from the human genome. Journal of Political Economy,121(1), 1–27. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3955392/ World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO). (2019). World intellectual property indicators 2018. Geneva, Switzerland: WIPO. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_941_2018.pdf Zgaga, P. (2012). Reconsidering university autonomy and governance: From academic freedom to institutional autonomy. In H. G. Schuetze, W. Bruneau & G. Grosjean (Eds.), University governance and reform. International and development education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section. How to cite this article: O'Sullivan S, Friebe M, Tonti W, et al. Surveyed impact of intellectual property training in STEM education on innovation, research, and development. J World Intellect Prop. 2020;23: 658–678. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12167 674 | O'SULLIVAN ET AL. APPENDIX A: SURVEY RESULTS A.1 Profile of survey responders I. Age Total % 18–24 years 11 2 25–34 years 51 10 35–44 years 103 20 45–54 years 137 26 55–64 years 130 25 Age 65 or older 90 17 522 100 II. Gender Total % Male 441 84 Female 81 16 522 100 III. Type of your affiliated organisation: Total % University/College 382 73 Independent Research Institution/Center (e.g., Max Planck Institute) 33 6 Institute of Technology (IT) 29 6 Online/Distance Learning Higher Education Entity 2 <1 Other 76 15 522 100 IV. Have you ever supervised a thesis/ dissertation? Total % Yes 368 70 No 154 30 522 100 V. Have you ever served on a doctoral committee? Total % Yes 273 52 No 249 48 522 100 VI. Highest level of education Total % Doctorate (Ph.D.) 383 73 Master's degree 65 12 Professional (e.g., M.D., J.D., D.V.M.) 6 1 (Continues) O'SULLIVAN ET AL. | 675 100 VII. Highest level of experience in Higher Education research or teaching: Total % Full Professor 135 26 Assistant Professor 50 10 Associate Professor 85 16 Doctorate (e.g., your Ph.D. thesis, Research or Teaching Assistant) 44 8 Graduate (e.g., your Master's thesis, Research or Teaching Assistant) 38 7 Adjunct Professor/Lecturer/Instructor 28 5 Lecturer/Instructor 28 5 Postdoc (Research Fellow or Associate, Research or Teaching Assistant) 22 4 Senior Lecturer/Instructor 19 4 Undergrad (e.g., your Bachelors thesis, Research or Teaching Assistant) 15 3 Distinguished Professor or Endowed Chair 13 2 Professor Emeritus/Emerita 11 2 Research Technician 6 1 Honorary Professor 4 1 Clinical Professor or Professor of Practice 3 1 I don't have any experience in Higher Education research or teaching 21 4 522 100 VIII. Choose a field that best describes your ''research/role'': Total % Engineering 202 39 Engineering technologies and engineering‐related fields 178 34 Computer and information sciences and support services 75 14 Physical sciences (e.g., Physics, Astronomy, Chemistry, Earth) 26 5 Biological and biomedical sciences 13 2 Mathematics and statistics 12 2 Business management, marketing, and related support services 71 Agriculture, agriculture operations, and related sciences 1<1 Health professions and related programs 1 <1 Not STEM related 7 1 522 100 676 | O'SULLIVAN ET AL. IX. Choose the country of your affiliated organization: Total % United States 177 34 Spain 41 8 India 31 6 Germany 22 4 Australia 17 3 Canada 15 3 China 15 3 Italy 14 3 Japan 12 2 United Kingdom 11 2 Mexico 10 2 Other countries <10 30 Countries with less than 10 responders are not shown in this table 522 100 A.2. Survey questions I: Q 1. What is your greater expectation when selecting research topics for students? Total % I expect students to develop new research skills 193 37 I expect students to pursue novel/innovative outcomes 242 46 I have never selected a research topic for students 87 17 522 100 II: Q 2. Have any of your selected research topics led to students filing for patent protection? Total % Yes 134 26 No 300 57 I have never selected a research topic for students 88 17 522 100 III: Q 3. Have any of your selected research topics led to students researching and/or exploiting active/lapsed/expired patents? Total % Yes 95 18 No 338 65 I have never selected a research topic for students. 89 17 522 100 O'SULLIVAN ET AL. | 677 IV: Q 4. Have you ever read patents in the course of your work? Total % Yes 396 76 No 126 24 522 100 V: Q 5. Do you think that the introduction of basic Intellectual Property (IP) modules to STEM course curriculum would enhance novel/innovative outcomes in research? Total % Yes 245 47 No 69 13 Don't know 208 40 522 100 VI: Q 6. Do you think that studying active/lapsed/expired patents would stimulate novel/ innovative outcomes in research? Total % Yes 234 45 No 30 6 Don't know 258 49 522 100 VII: Q 7. Would you have any ethical issues with exploiting lapsed/expired patents for your benefit? Total % Yes 80 15 No 266 51 Don't know 176 34 522 100 VIII: Q 8. Do you think exploiting lapsed/expired patents has benefits from a competitive or economic standpoint? Total % Yes 164 31 No 51 10 Don't know 307 59 522 100 IX: Q 9. Do you think anyone trying to innovate in the Open‐source space will see patents as restrictive? Total % Yes 220 42 No 67 13 Don't know 235 45 522 100 X: Q 10. Do you think the patent system is broken? Total % Yes 71 19 No 136 36 Don't know 168 45 (Voluntary responders) 375 100 678 | O'SULLIVAN ET AL.