Piccaluga, OTT. Proton 2011 Report

!
!
!
!
The$ProTon$Europe$$
Ninth$Annual$Survey$Report$
(fiscal$year$2011)$
$
December!2012!
$
$
Authors$
Andrea$Piccaluga$
Chiara$Balderi$
Claudia$Daniele$
$
$
Report$produced$by$Istituto$di$Management,$Scuola$Superiore$
for$ProTon$Europe$
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
ProTon$Europe$asbl!
c/o!CREF1!FNRS!
!
B11000,!Brussels!
Tel:+!352!661!123!670!!
E1mail:!sg@protoneurope.org!!
Web:!http://www.protoneurope.org!
!
Table$of$contents$
!
!
!
Presentation!........................................................................................................................!4!
1.!Acknowledgments!and!authors!.......................................................................................!6!
2.!Introduction!.....................................................................................................................!8!
3.!Executive!Summary!.........................................................................................................!9!
3.1.!Number!of!respondents!...........................................................................................!9!
!.............................................................................................................!9!
3.3.!IP!management.......................................................................................................!11!
3.4.!Licensing!.................................................................................................................!14!
3.5.!Spin1offs!..................................................................................................................!15!
3.6.!Performance!indicators!..........................................................................................!19!
3.7.!International!benchmark!........................................................................................!22!
4.!Respondents!!by!country!and!type!of!PROs!..................................................................!30!
5.!Characteristics!of!the!KTOs!............................................................................................!36!
6.!IP!management!..............................................................................................................!40!
7.!Licensing!........................................................................................................................!53!
8.!Spin1off!companies!........................................................................................................!60!
Appendix:!ProTon!Europe!Annual!Survey!Questionnaire!.................................................!65!
Glossary!.............................................................................................................................!72!
!
!
!
3""
Presentation$
!
Since! around! 2009! the! western! economies! have! been! facing! a! deep! crisis,! leading! to!
restrictions!on!public!spending!in!most!countries.!On!the!other!hand,!most!economists!
are! saying! that! innovation! is! the! only! way! to! generate! the! green! shoots! of! recovery.!
Innovation! is! then! a! task! for! all! of! the! relevant! actors,! in! particular! business! and!
commerce! but! also! other! sectors.! Universities! have! also! a! role! to! play! by! providing!
highly!educated,!entrepreneurial!and!creative!people,!by!delivering!research!which!aids!
our! understanding! of! the! world,! and! by! making! their! findings! available! to! support!
economic!growth.!!
If!innovation!is!the!way!for!our!countries!to!come!out!of!the!crisis,!then!it!is!predictable!
that! governments! will! look! for! reliable! metrics! ! in! order! to! convince! their! citizens! and!
parliaments! that! investing! in! research! and! education! is! relevant! and! will! lead! to! an!
improved!economic!situation.!
Knowledge!Transfer!Offices!(KTOs)!have!the!responsibility!to!make!science!investable,!to!
introduce! research! results! into! the! innovation! process,! and! to! link! with! appropriate!
partners! in! order! to! better! communicate! and! disseminate! innovations! to! the! general!
public.!
Since! its! foundation! in! 2003,! Proton! Europe! has! recognised! as! a! priority! the! need! to!
collect! data! and! report! on! metrics! which! measure! the! activity! of! KTOs! throughout!
Europe.!It!is!important!that!this!work!is!inclusive!and!comprehensive,!hence!we!strive!to!
cover!as!much!of!Europe!and!as!many!institutions!as!possible.!!
National! associations! as! members! of! Proton! Europe! can! be! key! players! in! collecting!
these! data,! and! more! and! more! individual! countries! are! conducting! national! surveys.!
Proton! Europe! devised! a! data! collecion! questionnaire! some! years! ago! by! involving!
national!associations!in!a!working!group.!This!questionnaire!has!now!been!adopted!by!
several! countries,! and! is! starting! to! enable! the! collection! of! a! more! comprehensive!
European! dataset.! Proton! Europe! is! grateful! to! those! early! adopters! who! have!
supported! the! survey! work,! and! is! working! to! enlarge! the! number! of! countries! and!
national! associations! who! will! use! the! Proton! survey! as! the! standard! (noting! that,! in!
some! cases,! additional! local! data! can! be! added! to! the! standard! questionnaire).! I! feel!
strongly! that! working! in! this! way! is! the! only! way! in! which! we! will! be! able! to! collate! a!
representative! dataset! which! will! allow! for! comparison! between! the! innovation!
activities! and! performance! of! European! universities! and! those! of! our! counterparts! in!
other!large!economies!in!the!world.!
Proton! Europe! also! recognises! the! value! in! generating! a! universal,! representative!!
dataset! for! Europe.! This! may! be! of! benefit! to! KTOs! who! are! often! asked! to! provide!
statistics! on! relative! international! performance! for! a! range! of! surveys! and! other!
purposes.!!
4"
ProTon!Europe!Ninth!Annual!Survey!Report!(FY!2011)!
One! of! the! key! aims! Proton! Europe! is! to! promote! this! common! system! of! data!
collection,! which! can! be! of! benefit! to! our! stakeholders! and! other! entities! who! have! a!
need!to!analyse!the!dataset!and!promote!further!work!based!on!it.!!
Proton! Europe! is! very! grateful! to! the! national! associations! which! have! adopted! the!
standard!survey,!and!to!the!Italian!team!which!brings!a!rigorous!scientific!approach!to!
collation!of!the!data,!providing!reliable!benchmarks!and!trends!in!KTOs.!Proton!intends!
that!the!availability!of!the!data!will!facilitate!international!comparisons!and!the!adoption!
of!best!practice,!and!will!highlight!the!benefits!of!participation!in!the!survey.!
Finally,!Proton!Europe!wants!to!emphasize!the!scale!of!the!task!which!is!tackled!by!the!
team! led! by! Prof! Andrea! Piccaluga,! at! the! Santa! Anna! Business! School! of! Pisa! and! to!
thank!them!for!their!ongoing!involvement!in!the!survey!and!in!the!metrics!approach.!
!
Dr#Ir#Michel#Morant#
Chair#of#the#Board#of#Proton#Europe#
"5""
ProTon!Europe!Nineth!Annual!Survey!Report!(FY!2011)!
!
1.$Acknowledgments$and$authors$
!
This! report! describes! and! analyses! Knowledge! Transfer! (KT)! data! collected! from!
European!universities!and!other!public!research!organisations!for!fiscal!year!(FY)!2011.!It!
has!been!written!by!Andrea$Piccaluga,!Chiara$Balderi!and!Claudia$Daniele,!who!work!at!
the! Istituto! di!
! and! has! been!
prepared!on!behalf!of!ProTon!Europe!(www.protoneurope.org).!!
Proton!Europe!wishes!to!thank!the!national!technology!transfer!associations!and!other!
organizations!which!have!collaborated!in!collecting!and!providing!national!data,!such!as!
HEFCE! (UK),! Netval! (Italy),! RedOtri! (Spain),! TechTrans! (Denmark),! ITTIG! and! Enterprise!
Ireland!(Ireland).!Previous!reports!and!presentations!are!available!on!the!ProTon!Europe!
website:!www.protoneurope.org!
$
Prof.$Michel$Morant$(University$of$Liege)$
Michel! Morant! is! presently! the! Managing! Director! of!
University1Industry! Liaison! Office! of! the! University! of!
Liege.! Michel! Morant! was! born! in! 1956! in! Malmedy,!
and! graduated! in! electromechanical! and! electrical!
engineering!at!University!of!Liege!in!1979,!than!a!MBA!
in! 1982! and! a! PhD! in! 1984.! During! this! period,! he! has!
been!working!at!the!ULg!as!a!Research!Engineer!in!the!
Electrical! Engineering! Department,! in! charge! of!
Industrial!contracting.!In!1986,!he!joined!the!Power!Transport!and!Distribution!Division!
of! the!AEG!Daimler1Benz! group,! became!member! of! the!managing! board! in! 1990,! and!
vice1president!in!charge!of!the!technique!and!commercial!departments!in!1995.!He!was!
appointed! in! 1998! by! the! University! to! reorganise! the! technology! transfer! activities,!
patenting,! licensing,! and! spin! off! activities.! He! is! now! CEO! of! Gesval,! which! is! the!
company! of! ULg! for! technology! transfer,! and! co1CEO! of! Spinventure,! the! seed! capital!
fund!of!Liege.!In!2002,!he!launched!the!first!Patlib!Center!in!Belgium,!and!is!now!vice1
president!of!Picarre,!the!Walloon!Agency!for!IP.!He!is!in!the!board!of!directors!of!several!
high!tech!companies.!He!is!CLP!certified,!and!member!of!international!associations!like!
of! SPOW,! the! Belgian! association! of! Science! Parks,! member! of! IASP.! Finally,! he! is! the!
current! President! of! ProTon1Europe,! the! paneuropean! association! of! KTOs! of! public!
research.$
$
6""
Prof.$Andrea$Piccaluga$(Scuola$Superiore$Sant'Anna)$
Professor! of! Innovation! Management! at! Scuola! Superiore!
Sant'Anna! (Pisa,! Italy),! where! he! is! Delegate! for! Technology!
Transfer!Delegate!and!Coordinator!of!the!international!PhD!in!
Management.! He! is! the! responsible! of! the! Netval! annual!
survey! and! of! the! ProTon! Europe! survey,! carried! out! at!
European!level.!He!carries!out!research!activity!at!the!Istituto!
di!Management!at!Scuola!Superiore!Sant'Anna.!
!
Chiara$Balderi$(Scuola$Superiore$Sant'Anna)$
PhD! in! Management! at! Scuola! Superiore! Sant'Anna,! Pisa!
(Italy)! in! March! 2010.! At! present,! post1doc! fellow! at! Scuola!
na.! Her! research! interests! focus! on! the!
processes! of! valorisation! of! research! results! from! public!
research! and! on! University1Industry! Technology! Transfer!
(UITT).!
!
Claudia$Daniele$(Scuola$Superiore$Sant'Anna)$
She!graduated!in!Sociology!at!the!University!of!Pisa!and!has!
now! a! research!grant! at! the! Istituto! di! Management!of! the!
Scuola! Superiore! Sant'Anna! of! Pisa.! She! conducts! research!
on! technology! transfer! activities! in! Italian! and! European!
universities,! dealing! with! the! data! collection! and! statistical!
elaboration!of!annual!surveys!Netval!and!ProTon!Europe.!
!
!
!
"7""
2.$Introduction$
!
Since!2003!ProTon!Europe!has!been!carrying!out!a!survey!of!the!activities!of!Knowledge!
Transfer!Offices!(KTOs)!in!European!universities!and!other!public!research!organisations!
(PROs).!This!is!therefore!the!ninth!consecutive!report!and!it!refers!to!FY!2011.!
ProTon!Europe!considers!this!kind!of!direct!collection!of!data!from!universities!and!PROs!
a! particularly! relevant! activity.! In! fact,! despite! the! high! level! of! attention! and! intense!
debate!about!the!valorisation!of!the!results!of!public!research!in!Europe!and!worldwide,!
empirical! detailed! evidence! about! the! specific! activities! and! outcomes! of! KTOs! is!
relatively! scarce.! In! the! present! survey,! data! have! been! collected! through! a!
questionnaire! which! has! maintained! a! core! of! common! questions! over! time! and! has!
taken! into! account! the! recommendations! of! the! European! Commission! (EC)! expert!
group!on!KT!metrics1.!Data!collection!has!taken!place!in!Summer!and!Autumn!2012.!!
In! order! to! minimize! the! administrative! burden! on! KTOs,! Proton! Europe! works! closely!
with! national! networks! and! associations! which! collect! the! data! that! is! included! in! the!
ProTon! Europe! survey.! This! is! the! most! effective! and! least! onerous! system! for! those!
countries!where!data!collection!at!national!level!is!well!established.!!
From!a!methodological!point!of!view,!the!important!choice!in!writing!the!present!report!
has!been!that!of!describing!with!extreme!precision!the!number!of!respondents!for!each!
question.! Often,! in! fact,! reports! about! KT! and! related! topics! present! data! only! in!
percentages,! without! sufficiently! precise! references! to! the! number! of! participants! and!
respondents! to! each! question.! ProTon! Europe! uses! the! results! of! its! survey,! among!
other! purposes,! to! underpin! the! development! of! KT! policy! at! European,! national! and!
regional!level!and!in!order!to!allow!PROs!to!benchmark!their!performances,!and!this!is!
why!complete!information!is!provided.!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1
!For!more!information!see!European!Commission!(2009),!Metrics#for#Knowledge#Transfer#from#
Public#Re
on#Knowledge#Transfer#Metrics,!Belgium,!ISBN!97819217911200911.!
8"
3.$Executive$Summary$
Data! from! 329$ Knowledge$ Transfer$ Offices$ (KTOs)$ are! included! in! the! present! survey,!
which!refers!to!fiscal!year!2011.!!
It! is! very! important! for! ProTon! Europe! to! analyse! longitudinal! data! and! this! is! why,!
wherever! possible,! the! annual! results! referring! to! previous! years! are! also! reported.!
Moreover,! in! order! to! try! and! compare! data! with! other! surveys! about! Knowledge!
Transfer! (KT)! activities! in! both! Europe! and! the! US,! where! available,! recent! data! from!
AUTM,!ASTP,!CEMI!and!Empirica!are!also!presented!(table!3.1).!
From!a!methodological!point!of!view,!it!is!also!worth!mentioning!that!in!order!to!provide!
a!clear!picture!of!the!results!achieved!in!the!surveyed!period!by!European!KTOs!actually!
involved! in! the! different! Knowledge! Transfer! (KT)! activities! 1! mainly,! Intellectual!
Property! (IP)! management,! licensing,! collaborative! and! contracted! research,! spin1off!
creation!1!some!average!values!have!been!calculated!using!two!different!samples!(table!
3.2).!The!first!sample!is!inclusive!of!all!KTOs!considered!in!the!survey.!The!second!sample!
only!includes!KTOs!whichregistered!non1zero!values!for!that!specific!question.!
!
3.1.$Number$of$respondents$
The! ninth! edition! of! the! survey! includes! data! from! 329! European! KTOs.! By! comparing!
the!sample!size!with!other!KT!surveys!carried!out!at!European!level!(table!3.1)
is!the!survey!about!KT!activities!in!Europe!with!the!highest!number!of!respondents!year!
after! year,! with! the! exception! of! the! Empirica! GmbH! survey,! funded! by! the! European!
Commission,!whose!sample!size!in!2010!was!402.!
Data$from$329$KTOs$
ProTon!Europe
n!about!KTOs,!which!makes!
data! collection! harder! in! the! short! term,! but! generates! very! valuable! data! for! policy!
makers! and! university! managers! in! the! medium! and! long! term.!
provides! longitudinal! data! about! KTOs! and! therefore! represents! a! very! rich! source! of!
information.!
!
3.2.$
With!regard!to!the!year$of$foundation,!the!average!age$of$the$KTOs!included!in!the!2011!
ProTon! Europe! survey! is! 14! years! (like! the! KTOs! included! in! the! survey! carried! out! by!
Empirica!GmbH);!it!was!11.2!in!the!2006!edition.!On!average,!European!KTOs!included!in!
the! 2008! ASTP! survey! are! 9! years! old,! whereas! U.S.! KTOs! (2007! AUTM! survey! results)!
exhibit!an!average!age!of!18.5!years!(table!3.1).!
In!2011,!KTOs!in!the!ProTon!survey!employed!on!average!8.3!full!time!equivalent!(FTE)!
employees!each.!In!particular,!the!average!FTE$staff!is!exactly!the!same!value!as!in!2006,!
with!a!small!increase!if!compared!with!2010!(figure!3.1).!!!
!
9"
European$KTOs$are$on$
average$14$years$old$
(FY$2011$ProTon$
Europe$survey)$
Average$staffing$$
level$in$2011$is$8.3$
FTEs$$
!
$
Figure$1$ $
$
(n2005=184;$n2006=140;$n2007=138;$n2008=144;$n2009=153;$n2010=152;$n2011=132)$
Average$KTOs'$staff$(FTEs)
12
9.7
10
8
8.3
8.4
2006
2007
7.5
7.6
7.7
2009
2010
8.3
6
4
2
0
2005
2008
2011
$
Source:#ProTon!Europe!!
!
2008!was!11!FTE!employees!(2008!AUTM!survey),!notwithstanding!that!U.S.!KTOs!were!1!
on!average!1!established!much!longer!ago!than!European!ones!(their!average!age!being!
almost!20!years).!!
In$2011$average$
annual$budget$$
for$European$KTOs$$
$375.2$K$$
The!average!budget!of!European!KTOs!in!2011!(results!from!the!ProTon!Europe!survey)!
is!
375.2!K!(figure!3.2),!which!is!138.3%!if!compared!with!the!result!referring!to!
2010! and! +8.9%! if! compared! with! 2005.! In! 2011,! the! average! budget! calculated! by!
considering!only!those!KTOs!exhibiting!non1
517.1!K!per!KTO!(table!3.2).!
10""
Figure$3.2$ $
$
(n2005=171;$n2006=40;$n2007=77;$n2008=107;$n2009=82;$n2010=101;$n2011=113)$$
Average$KTOs'$budget$(K$Euros)
700
608.1
600
514.8
500
400
543.4
437.5
406.9
375.2
344.4
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
$
Source:#ProTon!Europe!
3.3.$IP$management$
A!total!number!of!6,337!inventions!were!disclosed!by!European!KTOs!taking!part!to!the!
2011!ProTon!Europe!survey.!On!average,!each!KTO!registered!22.4$invention$disclosures!
(+16.1%! if! compared! with! 2010! and! +46.4%! if! compared! with! 2005;! figure! 3.3).! The!
average!number!is!31.7!inventions!if!we!consider!only!those!KTOs!in!which!at!least!one!
invention! was! disclosed! (table! 3.2).! The! average! number! of! inventions! disclosed! in! FY!
2010!by!the!KTOs!taking!part!to!the!survey!carried!out!by!Empirica!GmbH!is!29.9.!
Figure$3.3$ $Average$number$of$invention$disclosures$$
(n2005=292;$n2006=287;$n2007=296;$n2008=293;$n2009=315;$n2010=271;$n2011=283)$$
$
!
!
!
"11""
On$average,$in$2011,$
each$European$KTO$
disclosed$22.4$
$
!
priority$patent$
applications$$
In!2011,!European!KTOs!registered!a!total!number!of!3,358!priority$patent$applications$
(figure!3.4),!the!average!value!being!11.8!applications!per!KTO!(+26.9%!if!compared!with!
2010! and! +84.4%! if! compared! with! 2005).! This! figure! rises! to! 17! priority! patent!
applications!per!KTO!if!we!consider!only!those!KTOs!which!exhibited!non1zero!values!in!
2011!(table!3.2).!The!average!number!of!priority!patent!applications!filed!in!FY!2010!by!
the!KTOs!taking!part!to!the!Empirica!survey!is!14.4.!
Average$number$of$priority$patent$
applications
Figure$3.4$ $Average$number$of$priority$patent$applications$$
(n2005=338;$n2006=287;$n2007=308;$n2008=296;$n2009=310;$n2010=277;$n2011=285)$
14
11.8
12
10.7
10
8
10.0
10.5
9.3
8.7
6.4
6
4
2
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
$
!
Regarding!U.S.!performances:!on!average,!in!2010,!each!KTO!registered!112.8!invention!
disclosures! and! filed! 67.1! priority! patent! applications! (for! more! details,! see! the! 2010!
AUTM!results!in!table!3.1).!!
Each$European$KTO$
held$on$average$
81.9$active$patents$
in$portfolio$as$of$
December$31st$2011$
The!average!patent$portfolio$held!by!European!KTOs!participating!to!the!ProTon!survey!
as! of! December! 31st! 2011! (figure! 3.5)! included! 81.9! patents,! registering! a! constant!
increase! over! the! surveyed! period! (+194.6%! if! compared! with! 2005! and! +13.8%! if!
compared! with! 2010).! The! average! number! of! active! patents! held! by! those! European!
KTOs! exhibiting! a! patent! portfolio! at! the!end!of! 2011! included! 116.5! patents! per!KTO.!
The!patent!portfolio!is!therefore!clearly!increasing,!which!is!an!extremely!positive!result,!
even!if!it!represents!a!growing!management!responsibility!for!KTOs.!
$
!
!
12""
Figure$3.5$ $Average$patent$portfolio$as$of$December$31st$of$each$year$$
(n2005=309;$n2006=284;$n2007=280;$n2008=282;$n2009=307;$n2010=272;$n2011=280)$
90
81.9
Average$patent$portfolio
80
70
60
67.0
69.8
72.0
2008
2009
2010
52.6
50
40.9
40
27.8
30
20
10
0
2005
2006
2007
2011
!
!
With!regard!to!the!Intellectual$Property$Right$(IPR)$expenditure!registered!by!European!
KTOs!(figure!3.6),!the!observed!trend!is!ambivalent!in!the!surveyed!period,!the!average!
expenditure!decreasing!from!
!2007!!
(158.1%),! then! increasing!
and!
decreasing!
136.2!K!in!2010!(113.5%!if!compared!with!2009)!and!finally!
in!2011!(+34.6%!if!compared!with!2010).!For!those!KTOs!
which! registered! IPR! expenditure! in! 2011,! the! average!
291.2! K! per!
KTO!(table!3.2).!!
Average$IPR$expenditure$(K$Euros)
Figure$3.6$\$Annual$average$IPR$expenditure$$
(n2005=178;$n2006=256;$n2007=289;$n2008=292;$n2009=27;$n2010=240;$n2011=278)$
350
309.0
300
250
200
183.3
166.6
150
129.6
139.7
2007
2008
157.5
136.2
100
50
0
2005
2006
2009
2010
2011
!
Source:#ProTon!Europe!Survey!
"13""
Each$European$KTO$
invested$on$average$$
$
!
3.4.$Licensing$
licensing$agreements$
in$the$year$
Regarding! the! number! of! licences/options$ yearly$ executed$ (figure! 3.7)! by! ProTon!
Europe!survey!respondents,!in!2011!they!concluded!a!total!number!of!5,477!deals,!the!
average!number!being!19.2!per!KTO!(the!corresponding!value!in!the!Empirica!survey!for!
FY! 2010! being! 14.5! licences/options),! exhibiting! a! progressive! and! dramatic! increase!
over! the! period! surveyed! (+20%! if! compared! with! FY! 2010).! The! average! number! of!
licences/options! executed! in! 2010! is! much! higher! if! we! consider! only! those! KTOs! with!
non1zero!values:!32.6!agreements!per!KTO!(table!3.2).!!!
Average$number$of$licences/options
Figure$3.7$\$Annual$average$number$of$licences/options$executed$$
(n2005=123;$n2006=284;$n2007=298;$n2008=289;$n2009=304;$n2010=271;$n2011=286)$
25
19.2
20
15
11.2
12.6
12.4
2007
2008
16.0
16.0
2009
2010
10
5
2.4
0
2005
2006
2011
$
!
Results! from! the! ASTP! survey! show! similar! performances! (table! 3.1):! in! 2008! a! total!
number! of! 1,129! licences/options! were! executed,! the! average! number! being! 13! deals!
per!KTO,!whereas!European!respondents!to!the!2007!CEMI!survey!registered!a!total!of!
1,443!contracts:!in!particular,!each!KTO!concluded!on!average!less!than!8!agreements.!
Even! though! European! KTOs! are! still! far! from! reaching! U.S.! licensing! level! (a! total!
number!of!5,362!licences/option!executed!in!2010,!with!an!average!number!of!over!29.3!
agreements! per! KTO;! table! 3.1),! they! are! progressively! achieving! encouraging! results.!
However,! it! is! worth! pointing! out! that! the! European! figure! achieved! in! 2011! ProTon!
Europe! survey! is! mainly! attributable! to! the! relevant! annual! licensing! performances!
exhibited!by!UK!KTOs.!
In$FY$2011$each$
European$KTO$
registered$average$
licensing$revenues$for$
$
The!total!amount!of!annual$licensing$revenues!(figure!3.8)!for!the!European!KTOs!taking!
part!to!the!ProTon!Europe!survey!in!2011!is! 90!
333.2!K!
per!KTO!(this!value!rises!to!about! 517!K!by!considering!only!those!KTOs!with!non1zero!
values;!table!3.2)!and!exhibiting!an!ambivalent!trend!in!the!whole!period!surveyed!(FY!
200512011).!In!particular,!a!decrease!(125.1%)!can!be!observed!in!the!period!200512007,!
14""
after! which! a! rising! trend! (+56.2%)! has! been! registered! in! the! period! 200712011.! The!
!
Average$licensing$revenues$(K$Euros)
Figure$3.8$ $Annual$average$licensing$revenues$$
(n2005=291;$n2006=274;$n2007=292;$n2008=285;$n2009=272;$n2010=239;$n2011=270)$
333.2
350
300
284.9
267.5
250
246.9
259.4
280.0
213.3
200
150
100
50
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
$
!
Regarding!U.S.!figures,!the!total!amount!of!licensing!revenues!in!2010!
9.9!M!(table!3.1).!
.8!B.!
3.5.$Spin\offs$
In!2011,!the!total!number!of!spin\off$companies$created!with!the!support!of!European!
KTOs!taking!part!to!the!ProTon!Europe!survey!is!549,!the!average!number!being!1.9!new!
spin1offs! per! KTO! (figure! 3.9).! In! this! respect,! by! comparing! with! the! figures! from!
previous! years,! ! we! can! see! that! the! average! number! of! spin1off! companies! started! in!
each!year!has!been!quite!stable!over!time,!varying!between!1.4!and!1.9!new!firms!per!
KTO!(similarly,!the!average!number!of!spin1offs!created!by!those!KTOs!which!generated!
at!least!one!company!in!each!year!is!quite!stable!in!the!surveyed!period:!3!to!4!spin1off!
companies!per!KTO;!table!3.2).!According!to!the!Empirica!survey,!in!FY!2010,!the!average!
number!of!spin1offs!created!per!annum!was!3.1!companies.!
These! results! about! the! spin1out! performances! of! European! KTOs! are! particularly!
significant! if! we! consider! that! a! total! number! of! 651! spin1offs! were! generated! by! US!
KTOs!in!2010!(AUTM!survey),!the!average!number!being!3.5!new!firms!per!respondent,!
by! registering! a! slight! increase! over! the! last! four! years! (+20.7%! if! compared! with! FY!
2007).! European! KTOs! are! progressively! catching! up,! by! developing! their! ability! to!
support!and!foster!spin1off!creation!(table!3.1)!
"15""
Each$European$KTO$
created$on$average$
1.9$new$spin\off$
companies$in$2011$
$
!
Figure$3.9$ $Average$number$of$spin\off$companies$created$per$year$$
(n2005=319;$n2006=293;$n2007=297;$n2008=293;$n2009=307;$n2010=170;$n2011=288)$
Average$number$of$spin\offs
1.8
2
2
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.9
1.9
2010
2011
1.5
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
$
!
The!total$number$of$active$spin\offs$(figure!3.10)!created!by!ProTon !respondents!as!of!
December! 31st! 2011! is! 1,218,! the! average! being! 11.1! active! companies! per! KTO! (12.4!
active!spin1offs!by!including!in!the!sample!just!the!non1zero!values;!table!3.2),!exhibiting!
a!progressive!increase!over!the!period!surveyed!(+35.4%!if!compared!with!FY!2005!and!!
15.9%!if!compared!with!FY!2010).!
Figure$3.10$ $Average$number$of$active$spin\off$companies$as$of$December$31st$$
(n2006=200;$n2007=296;$n2008=280;$n2009=285;$n2010=139;$n2011=110)$
Average$number$of$active$spin\offs
For$each$European$KTO$
the$average$number$of$
active$spin\offs$at$the$
end$of$FY$2011$is$11.1$
active$spin\offs!
14
11.8
12
11.1
10.0
10
8.2
8.4
2006
2007
9.1
8
6
4
2
0
2008
2009
2010
2011
!
Source:#ProTon!Europe!Survey
16""
Table$3.1$\$ProTon$Europe,$ASTP,$CEMI,$Empirica$GmbH$and$AUTM:$a$comparison$
2007$
2009$
2011$
2007$
2008$
Empirica$
GmbH$(Iii)$
2010$
323!
320!
329!
140!
99!
402ur!
194!
181!
186!
11.4!
14.0!
14.0!
9.4!
9.0!
14.0u!
18.5!
n.a.!
n.a.!
1,203.5!
1,151.8!
1,091.5!
1,197.4!
1,059.3!
n.a.!
1,925.9!
n.a.!
n.a.!
8.4!
7.8!
8.3!
8.9!
10.7!
n.a.!
9.9!
n.a.!
n.a.!
19,827!
20,309!
21,856!
ProTon$Europe(i)$
Overall$Figures$
FY$
Number!of!survey!
respondents!
Average!KTO!age!(years)!
Total!KTO!staff!(FTEs)!
Average!staff!(FTEs)!per!KTO!
Total!disclosures!
5,982!
Average!disclosures!per!KTO!
Total!priority!patent!
applications!
Average!priority!patent!
applications!per!KTO!
Total!patent!portfolio!
Average!patent!portfolio!per!
KTO!
Total!licences/options!
executed!
Average!licences/options!
executed!per!KTO!
Total!licensing!revenues!!
Average!licensing!revenues!
per!KTO!!
Total!spin1offs!created!
Average!spin1offs!created!
per!KTO!
6,039!
ASTP(ii)$
6,337!
5,180!
3,373!
10,300 !
u
AUTM$(iv)$
2007$
2009$
2011$
20.2!
19.9!
22.4!
38.7!
36.7!
29.9 !
102.7!
112.2!
117.5!
3,303!
3,227!
3,358!
1,985!
1,328!
5,061u!
11,797!
12,109!
13,271!
10.7!
10.6!
11.8!
14.9!
13.8!
14.4u!
61.1!
66.9!
71.3!
14,730!
21,310!
22,945!
n.a.!
n.a.!
n.a.!
n.a.!
n.a.!
n.a.!
52.6!
70.6!
81.9!
n.a.!
n.a.!
n.a.!
n.a.!
n.a.!
n.a.!
3,768!
4,872!
5,477!
1.38!
1,129!
4,820u!
5,109!
5,328!
6,051!
12.6!
16.4!
19.2!
11.0!
13.0!
14.5u!
26.3!
29.4!
32.5!
n.a.!
!202,3!Mu!
n.a.!
715.0!Ku!
90!M!
2!K!
!
!
8!B!
7!M!
549!
473!
549!
377!
228!
1,041u!
555!
596!
671!
1.8!
1.5!
1.9!
2.8!
2.5!
3.1u!
2.9!
3.3!
3.6!
Sources:#(i)!ProTon!Europe!Survey!(FY!2007111);!(ii)!Final!results!of!the!ASTP!Survey!(FY!2006108);!!
(iii)!Empirica!GmbH!(FY!2010),!where:!(ur)!universities!and!research!institutes;!(u)!universities!only;!
(iv)!AUTM!U.S.!Licensing!Activity!Survey!(FY!2007111).
!
Table$3.2$\$ProTon$Europe$Annual$Survey$fact\sheet$
FY$2006$
Average$figures$
Characteristics"of"the"
KTOs:"
Average!staff!(FTEs)!per!
KTO!
Average!KTO!budget!!
IP"management:"
Average!disclosures!per!
KTO!
Average!priority!patent!
applications!per!KTO!
Average!active!patent!
portfolio!
Average!IPR!expenditure!
per!KTO!!
Licensing:"
Average!licences/options!
executed!per!KTO!
Average!licensing!revenues!
per!KTO!!
SpinCoffs:"
Average!spin1offs!created!
per!KTO!
Average!active!spin1offs!
per!KTO!
FY$2008$
FY$2011$
FY$2010$
All$KTOs$
(n=325)$
Non\zero$
values$
All$KTOs$
(n=305)$
Non\zero$
values$
All$KTOs$
(n=295)$
Non\zero$
values$
8.3!
8.4!
9.7!
9.7!
7.7!
7.8!
!608.1!K!
All$KTOs$
(n=329)$
Non\zero$
values$
8.3!
8.5!
653.4!K!
"
"
"
18.3!
27.0!
19.9!
28.4!
19.3!
26.8!
22.4!
31.7!
8.7!
13.2!
10.0!
14.8!
9.3!
13.5!
11.8!
17.0!
40.9!
65.3!
67.0!
101.0!
72.0!
102.6!
81.9!
116.5!
.2!K!
.2K!
11.2!
20.2!
12.4!
21.7!
16.0!
28.1!
19.2!
32.6!
!280.0!K!
!458.4!K!
1.6!
3.3!
1.6!
2.9!
1.9!
3.1!
1.9!
3.9!
8.2!
11.9!
9.1!
13.4!
11.8!
14.4!
11.1!
12.4!
Source:#ProTon!Europe!Survey,!FY!2006,!2008,!2010!and!2011!
!
!
1!18!1!
ProTon!Europe!Eighth!Annual!Survey!Report!(FY!2011)!
3.6.$Performance$indicators$$
Summing!up,!the!results!from!the!ProTon!Europe!surveys!carried!out!at!European!level!
(by! including! in! the! sample! all! responding! KTOs)! show! that! for! most! of! the! main! KT!
indicators! the! average! values! increased! in! the! period! 201012011! (figure! 3.11).! The!
exceptions!are!represented!by!the!number!of!active!spin1off!companies!(15.9%)!and!the!
new!spin1offs!yearly!created!(which!did!not!change).!In!particular,!in!the!last!two!years!
surveyed,! each! KTO! increased! staff! (+7.8%),! invention! disclosures! (+16.1%),! priority!
patent! applications! (+26.9%),! IPR! expenditure! (+34.6%),! licences/! options! yearly!
executed!(+20%),!licensing!revenues!(+18.9%).!
Most$of$the$main$
indicators$of$KT$the$
average$values$
increased$sharply$in$the$
period$2010\11!
Trends!are!similar!1!even!though!average!values!are!higher!1!by!including!in!the!sample!
only! KTOs! with! non1zero! values! (figure! 3.12).! Over! the! last! two! years! surveyed,! each!
KTO!registered!increasing!average!values!with!regard!to!their!IPR!expenditure!(+39.9%),!
priority! patent! applications! (25.9%),! new! spin1offs! created! (+25.8%),! invention!
disclosures! (+18.3%),! licences/options! yearly! executed! (+16%),! licensing! revenues!
(+
Again,! the! number! of! active! spin1offs! decreased! (1
13.9%).!
Trends$are$similar,$even$
if$average$values$are$
physiologically$higher,$
by$including$in$the$
sample$just$non\zero$
values!
!
!
!
!
19"
!
Figure$3.11$\$Evolution$of$ProTon$Europe$main$indicators$about$KT$activities$in$the$period$2010\2011:$average$values$(all$KTOs)$
+18.9%!
Average!values!(all!KTOs)
35
30
+16.1%!
25
+34.6%!
+20.0%!
20
15
15.9%!
+26.9%!
+7.8%!
2010
2011
10
0.0%!
5
0
$
$
of
fs
in
1
e!
sp
of
fs
in
1
Lic
e
Sp
nc
es
/
Ac
tiv
!cr
ea
te
ns
op
tio
ns
lic
at
io
!p
at
e
nt
!ap
p
sc
lo
s
Pr
io
r
ity
tio
ve
n
In
KT
Os
'!!s
n!
di
ta
ff!
(F
TE
s
ur
es
!
$
$
60
+12.9%!
50
+18.3%!
40
2010
113.9%!
+25.9%!
20
+9.0%!
2011
+25.8%!
10
0
Source:#ProTon!Europe
of
fs
in
1
!sp
of
fs
in
1
Sp
Ac
tiv
e
!cr
ea
te
ns
op
nc
es
/
tio
Lic
e
t!a
pp
lic
at
io
ur
es
Pr
io
r
ity
tio
ve
n
In
!p
at
en
n!
di
sc
lo
s
(F
TE
s
ta
ff!
'!!s
ns
KT
Os
!
+16.0%!
+39.9%!
30
Average$values$(non\zero$values)
Figure$3.12$\$Evolution$of$ProTon$Europe$main$indicators$about$KT$activities$in$the$period$2010\2011:$average$values$(non\zero$values)$
3.7.$International$benchmark$$
Finally,!an!attempt!at!presenting!an!international$benchmark,!aimed!at!comparing!the!
performances! achieved! by! KTOs! localized! in! different! geographic! contexts! is! hereafter!
proposed!(table!3.3).!In!particular,!the!empirical!evidence!obtained!by!different!national!
surveys!carried!out!at!European!level!(namely!in!Italy,!Spain,!Denmark,!Ireland,!Belgium!
and! UK,! regarding! 2010)!is! presented! and! compared! with!the! corresponding! results! of!
multi1country!surveys!carried!out!at!European!level,!including:!ProTon!Europe!(FY!2011),!
ASTP!(2008),!CEMI1EPFL!(2007)!and!Empirica!GmbH!(2010).!
The! following! step! has! been! represented! by! the! analysis! of! the! empirical! evidence!
regarding! other! non1European! countries,! among! which:! US! and! Canada! in! North!
America;!China,!Japan!and!South!Korea!in!South1East!Asia!and!Australia!in!Oceania!(even!
if!sometimes!referred!to!different!reference!years).!
We! are! aware! that! the! availability! of! data! drawn! from! such! a! heterogeneous! set! of!
contexts! makes! it! difficult! to! carry! out! tout# court! comparisons.! However,! the! overall!
dataset! represents! a! great! source! of! information! and! best! practices! of! different! KT!
models!existing!in!different!regions!of!the!world,!allowing!us!to!overcome!the!traditional!
Euro1American! scope! of! the! analysis,! by! including! in! the! research! focus! also! empirical!
evidence!referred!to!South1East!Asia!and!Australia.!In!our!comparison,!we!have!also!to!
keep!in!mind!that!while!in!the!U.S.!the!focus!is!mainly!on!the!TT;!in!the!other!regions,!
the!focus!is!on!KT.!
With!regard!to!the!results!of!different! national$surveys$carried$out$at$European$level,!
Italian!and!Irish!KTOs!are!quite!young,!their!average!age!being!respectively!about!6!and!
5! years.! The! corresponding! average! age! emerging! from! other! national! surveys! carried!
out!at!European!level!is!12.9!years!for!Danish!KTOs,!18.9!years!for!Spanish!and!17.5!for!
UK!
4!FTEs!per!KTO),!as!well!as!
the!Danish!ones!(4.8!FTEs!per!KTO),!whereas!Spanish!KTOs!are!significantly!bigger!(about!
12.7!FTEs!per!KTO).!French!KTOs!were!employing!on!average!6.3!FTEs!in!2007.!
By! considering! the! average! performances! in! the! disclosing1patenting1licensing!
valorisation! channel,! Italian! KTOs! registered! 9.4! invention! disclosures,! whereas! the!
corresponding! result! was! 15.7! invention! disclosures! for! Irish! KTOs,! 20.7! invention!
disclosures!for!Spanish!TTOs!and!over!26!invention!disclosures!for!both!Danish!and!UK!
KTOs.!French!KTOs!registered!on!average!3.6!invention!disclosures!in!2007.!
Regarding!the!average!number!of!priority!patent!applications!filed!in!2011,!Italian!and!
Irish! KTOs! presented! respectively! 6.3! and! 5.3! priority! patent! applications,! whereas!
Spanish! and! Danish! ones! filed! on! average! about! 10! applications.! UK! KTOs! filed! on!
average! 14.4! applications.! The! corresponding! data! for! French! KTOs! in! 2007! was! 3.3!
priority!patent!applications!per!KTO.!
On!average!the!active!patents!held!in!portfolio!as!of!December!31st!2011!by!Italian!KTOs!
were! 55.7.! Such! a! result! is! similar! to! the! corresponding! data! for! Spanish! KTOs! (62.7!
patents)! and! greater! than! the! Irish! result! (35.6! patents),! whereas! for! Danish! KTOs! the!
average! volume! was! significantly! smaller! (8.3! patents).! UK! KTOs! exhibit! the! biggest!
!
22"
4.!Respondents!by!country!and!type!of!PROs!
average! number! of! active! patents! at! the! end! of! the! year! (104.1! patents).! The! average!
patent!portfolio!of!French!KTOs!at!the!end!of!2007!included!32.9!active!patents.!
With!regard!to!licensing!activities,!in!2011!Italian!KTOs!executed!an!average!number!of!
1.3!licences/options,!while!Spanish!ones!concluded!on!average!3.7!agreements.!Irish!and!
Danish!KTOs!registered!on!average!4.2!and!7.6!licences/options!respectively!in!the!year,!
while!UK!KTOs!concluded!about!31.7!contracts.!On!average,!each!French!KTO!concluded!
in!FY!2007!1.7!licences/options.!
The! average! amount! of! licensing! revenues! registered! in! FY! 2011! is! 31.4! K! for! Italian!
42.9!
482.7!
647.1!K!for!Danish!ones.!
The!corresponding!value!for!
2007.!
Finally,! regarding! the! average! number! of! new! spin1off! companies! created! in! 2011,!
Danish! KTOs! generated! 0.6! new! companies! in! the! year.! Italian,! Irish! and! UK! KTOs!
created!on!average!3.2,!1.2!and!1.7!spin1offs!per!KTO!respectively.!From!Spanish!KTOs!,!
an!average!number!of!1.8!new!spin1offs!gemmated!in!2010.!The!corresponding!result!for!
French!KTOs!in!2007!was!1.5!new!spin1offs.!
Concerning! the! empirical! evidence! obtained! by! the! different! multi\country$ surveys$
carried$ out$ at$ European$ level! (namely! ProTon! Europe,! ASTP,! CEMI1EPFL! and! Empirica!
GmbH),!the!average!age!of!the!329!KTOs!responding!to!the!2011!ProTon!Europe!survey!
is! 14! years,! their! average! size! being! 8.3! FTEs.! Also! for! the! 402! Empirica! GmbH!
respondents!(including!both!universities!and!research!institutes)!to!the!2010!survey,!the!
!14!years.!Instead,!the!99!ASTP!respondents!to!the!FY!2008!survey!
were!on!average!9!years!old!and!employed!an!average!number!of!10.7!FTEs,!very!close!
to! the! average! size! of! the! 211! KTOs! responding! to! the! 2007! CEMI1EPFL! survey! (10.8!
FTEs).!!
Regarding! disclosing! and! patenting! activities,! the! evidence! provided! by! the! ProTon!
Europe! survey! shows! that! on! average! in! 2011! European! KTOs! registered! about! 22.4!
invention!disclosures!and!filed!11.8!priority!patent!applications.!At!the!end!of!the!year,!
the! respondents! were! holding! an! active! patent! portfolio! including! on! average! 81.9!
patents.! On! average,! respondents! to! 2010! Empirica! GmbH! survey! registered! 29.9!
invention! disclosures! and! filed! 14.4! priority! patent! applications! per! KTO.! The! results!
obtained! by! the! ASTP! survey! show! that! on! average! in! 2008! the! responding! KTOs!
registered!36.7!invention!disclosures!and!filed!13.8!priority!patent!applications.!
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
!
23"
!
24"
Table$3.3$ $Some$performance$indicators$from$surveys$about$the$valorisation$of$
Europa$
National$surveys$
European$surveys$
$$ 2011$
2011$
2011$
2011$
2011$
2007$
2011$
2008$
2007$
Empirica$
GmbH$
2010$
6.5a!
18.9c!
12.9d!
4.6e!
17.5f!
n.a.!
14.0h!
9.0i!
n.a.!
14.0l!
201.4a! 823.3c!
66.7d!
78.6e!
n.a.!
583g!
12.7c!
4.8d!
3.7e!
n.a.!
6.3g!
8.3h!
10.7i!
10.8k!
n.a.!
Totale!!
disclosures!
468a! 1,282c!
365d!
407e!
4,222f!
233g!
6,337h!
3,373i!
n.a.!
10,300l!
Average!
disclosures!
9.4!a!
20.7c!
26.1d!
15.7e!
26.9f!
3.6g!
22.4h!
36.7i!
n.a.!
29.9l!
Total!priority!
patent!
applications!
319a!
612c!
171d!
139e!
2,256f!
259g!
3,358h!
1,328i!
n.a.!
5,061l!
Average!priority!
patent!
applications!
6.3!a!
9.7c!
12.2d!
5.3e!
14.4f!
3.3g!
11.8h!
13.8i!
n.a.!
14.4l!
Total!active!
2,787a! 3,697c!
patent!portfolio!
116d!
926e!
16,345f! 2,269g!
22,945h!
n.a.!
n.a.!
n.a.!
Average!active!
55.7a! 62.7c!
patent!portfolio!
8.3d!
35.6e!
104.1f!
32.9g!
81.9h!
n.a.!
n.a.!
n.a.!
Total!
66.0a!
licences/options!!
230c!
107d!
109e!
5,074f!
115g!
5,477h!
1,129i!
1,443k!
4,820l!
Average!
1.3a!
licences/options!!
3.7c!
7.6d!
4.2e!
31.7f!
1.7g!
19.2h!
13.0i!
7.8k!
14.5l!
Total!licensing!
2.4c!
9.1d!
n.a.!
77.2f!
8.5g!
90.0h!
89.2j!
n.a.!
202.3l!
647.1d!
n.a.!
482.7f!
130.3g!
333.2h!
929.2j!
n.a.!
715.0l!
Italy$ Spain$ Denmark$ Ireland$
age!(years)!
(FTEs)!
3.8!a!
staff!(FTEs)!
!
Average!
licensing!
1.2a!
31.4a! 42.9c!
UK$
France$
ProTon$
ASTP$
CEMI$
1,091.5h! 1,059.3i! 2,203.2k!
n.a.!
!
Total!spin1offs!
yearly!created!!
164b!
111c!
8d!
31e!
266f!
99g!
549h!
228i!
640k!
1,041l!
Average!spin1
offs!yearly!
created!
3.2b!
1.8c!
0.6d!
1.2e!
1.7f!
1.5!g!
1.9h!
2.5i!
4.1k!
3.1l!
25"
!
results$from$public$research$at$international$level2$
America$
U.S.$
Canada$
Asia$
China$
Oceania$
$
South$
Korea$
Japan$
Australia$$
$
2011$
2011$
2010$
2010$
2007$
2010$
18.5m!
12.2p!
n.a.!
n.a.!
4.2y!
n.a.!
2,092n!
354rbis!
969s!
616v!
696z!
681ab!
11.0n!
9.9q!
14s!
15.8v!
4.8z!
9.5ab!
21,856obis!
1.821rbis!
n.a.!
6.482w!
n.a.!
1,705ab!
Average!disclosures!
112.8o!
43.3r!
n.a.!
46w!
n.a.!
23.7ab!
Total!priority!patent!
applications!
13,271obis!
849rbis!
54,099t!
6,373w!
7,326y!
948ab!
Average!priority!
patent!applications!
67.1o!
23.2r!
65.4t!
45.2w!
52.3y!
13.2ab!
Total!active!patent!
portfolio!
n.a.!
n.a.!
96,182t!
6,604w!
n.a.!
11,004ab!
Average!active!
patent!portfolio!
n.a.!
n.a.!
116.3t!
46.8w!
n.a.!
152.8ab!
Total!
licences/options!!
6,051obis!
578rbis!
1,571t!
3,721w!
951y!
502ab!
Average!
licences/options!!
29.3o!
11.2r!
1.9t!
26.4w!
6.8y!
7.0!ab!
1,866,8obis!
48.9rbis!
60.7t!
10.4w!
11.8y!
72.8ab!
9,951.1o!
1,127.2r!
73.4t!
73.7w!
84.3y!
1,011.4ab!
671obis!
68rbis!
4,419u!
140x!
47aa!
15ab!
3.5o!
1.2r!
142.5u!
4.0x!
0.4aa!
0.2ab!
$$
(years)!
(FTEs)!
(FTEs)!
Totale!disclosures!
Total!licensing!
!
Average!licensing!
!
Total!spin1offs!yearly!
created!!
Average!spin1offs!
yearly!created!
!
#
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2
!The!table!reports!the!most!recent!value!available!for!each!indicator.!Average!values!have!been!
calculated! by! including! in! the! data! processing! all! the! KTOs! responding! to! the! different! surveys!
(both! zero! and! non1zero! values).! The! reference! year! for! each! value! can! therefore! vary! among!
different! indicators,! even! if! referring! to! the! same! country.! Detailed! information! about! the!
indicated! near! each! indicator! and! reported! below.! Basing! on! these! considerations,! it! is! worth!
noticing!that!the!reference!year!reported!on!the!top!of!each!column!of!table!3.3!just!refers!to!the!
most! recent! year! about! which! information! is! available! for! each! geographic! context! included! in!
the!analysis.!However,!within!each!column!also!less!recent!data!may!be!reported.!
26"
#
Sources#Table#3.3!Europe:!national!surveys:!Italy:!(a)!Netval!(2013),!Research!report!(FY!2011);!(b)!
Piccaluga! A.,! Balderi! C.! (2011),! data! base! (FY! 2010;! n=69);! Spain:! (c)! RedOTRI! Universidades! 1!
CRUE! (2013),! Memoria# RedOTRI# 2011.! Research! report! (FY! 2011);! Denmark:! (d)! Ministry! of!
Science,! Technology! and! Innovation! ! Danish! Agency! for! Science.! Technology! and! Innovation! !
DASTI! (2012),! Public# Research# Commercialisation# Survey.# Denmark# 2011.# Summary.! Executive!
summary! (FY!2011);! Ireland:# (e)! Enterprise! Ireland! (2011),! 2010# Irish# Commercialization# Survey.!
Research!report!(FY!2010;!n=26);!UK:!(f)!Higher!Education!Funding!Council!for!England! !HEFCE!
(2012),! Higher# Education# N# Business# and# Community# Interaction# (HENBCI)# Survey# 2010N11.!
Research!report!(FY!2011);!France:!(g)!Universit!de!Strasbourg.!
applique!1!BETA.!Centre!Nationale!de!la!Recherche!Scientifique! 1!CNRS!(2010),!Les#activits#de#
recherche# contractuelle# et# de# transfert# de# technologie# dans# les# tablissements# franais#
Enqute# 2006/07.! Research! report! (FY! 2007;! n=111);! European$
surveys:! (h)! ProTon! Europe! (2013),! The# ProTon# Europe# Ninth# Annual# Survey# Report# (FY# 2011).!
Research!report!(FY!2011;!n=329);!(i)!Association!of!European!Science!and!Technology!Transfer!
Professionals! 1! ASTP! (2010),! Summary# Respondent# Report:# ASTP# Survey# for# Fiscal# Year# 2008.!
Executive! summary! (FY! 2008;! n=99);! (j)! ASTP! (2008),! Final# results# of# the# ASTP# Survey# for# Fiscal#
Year# 2007.! Research! report! (FY! 2007;! n=140);! (k)! cole! Polytechnique! Fdrale! de! Lausanne!
(EPFL)! 1! College! du! Management! de! la! Technologie! 1! Chaire! en! Economie! et! Management! de!
1!CEMI!(2008),!The#CEMI#Survey#of#University#Technology#Transfer#Offices#in#Europe.!
Research! report! (FY! 2007;! n=211);! (l)! Empirica! GmbH! (2012),! Respondent# Report# of# the#
Knowledge# Transfer# Study# (FY! 2010;! n=402);! America:! U.S.:! (m)! Association! of! University!
Technology! Managers! 1! AUTM! (2008),! AUTM# U.S.# Licensing# Activity# Survey# FY# 2007.# Survey#
Summary.!Executive!summary!(FY!2007;!n=194);!(n)!AUTM!(2009),!AUTM#U.S.#Licensing#Activity#
Survey#FY#2008.#Survey#Summary.!Executive!summary!(FY!2008;!n=191);!(o)!AUTM!(2011),!AUTM#
U.S.# Licensing# Activity# Survey# FY# 2010.# Survey# Summary.! Executive! summary! (FY! 2010;! n=183);!
(obis)!AUTM!(2013),!AUTM#U.S.#Licensing#Activity#Survey#Highlights#FY#2011.!Executive!summary!
(FY!2011);!Canada:!(p)!AUTM!(2007),!AUTM#Canadian#Licensing#Activity#Survey#FY#2006.#Survey#
Summary.! Executive! summary! (FY! 2006;! n=39);! (q)! AUTM! (2009),! AUTM# Canadian# Licensing#
Activity#Survey#FY#2008.#Survey#Summary.!Executive!summary!(FY!2008;!n=37);!(r)!AUTM!(2011),!
AUTM# Canadian# Licensing# Activity# Survey# FY# 2010.# Survey# Summary.! Executive! summary! (FY!
2010;! n=40);! (rbis)! AUTM! (2013),! AUTM# Canadian# Licensing# Activity# Survey# Highlights# FY# 2011.!
Executive! summary! (FY! 2011);! ! Asia:! China:! (s)! Science! and! Technology! Development! Center!
(TDC)! of! Ministry! of! Education! (MOE)! of! China! (2011),# Intellectual# Property# Report# of# Chinese#
Universities.#FY#2010.!Research!report!(FY!2010;!n=72);!(t)!Science!and!Technology!Development!
Center! (TDC)! of! Ministry! of! Education! (MOE)! of! China! (2011),# Intellectual# Property# Report# of#
Chinese#Universities.#FY#2010.!Research!report!(FY!2010;!n=827);!(u)!Ministry!of!Education!(MOE)!
of! China! (2007),! Chinese# University# Technology# Transfer,# Research! report! (FY! 2006.! n=569);!
Japan:!(v)!Senoo!D.!et#al.!(2009),!
.! International# Journal# of# Knowledge# Management# Studies.! Vol.! 3.! N.! 1/2.! Inderscience!
Enterprises! Ltd.! (FY! 2004;! n=39);! (w)! Japan! Ministry! of! Education,! Culture,! Sports,! Science! and!
Technology!1!MEXT!(2011),#State#of#University#Technology#Transfer#in#Japan.#FY#2010.!Research!
report!(FY!2010;!n=141);!(x)!Japan!Ministry!of!Economy.!Trade!and!Industry!1!METI!(2006),!Basic#
Survey# Report# on# University# Ventures.! Research! report! (FY! 2005;! n=35);! South# Korea:! (y)! Korea!
Association!of!University!Technology!Transfer!Management!1!KAUTM!(2009),!
University!TLO!
.!Proceedings#of#the#International#Patent#Licensing#Seminar#
2009.! January! 19120.! Tokyo! (FY! 2007;! n=140);! (z)! Korea! Government! 1! Ministry! of! Commerce.!
Industry! and!Energy! 1! MOCIE!(2005).! The#Survey# on# the# Technology# Transfer# of# Public# Research#
Institutes.! research! report! (FY! 2005;! n=145);! (aa)! Small! &! Medium! Business! Administration! 1!
SMBA! (2007).! Official# Statistics.! Database! (FY! 2006;! n=121);! Oceania:! Australia:! (ab)! Australian!
Government!1!Department!of!Innovation,!Industry,!Science!and!Research!(2013),#National#Survey#
of#Research#Commercialization#(2010N2011).!Research!report.!!
27"
!
According! to! the! ProTon! Europe! results,! the! average! number! of! licences/options!
executed! by! responding! KTOs! in! FY! 2011! is! 19.2! contracts,! while! the! corresponding!
results!include!13!agreements!according!to!the!ASTP!survey!(FY!2008),!7.8!agreements!
according!to!the!CEMI1EPFL!survey!(FY!2007)!and!14.5!according!to!the!Empirica!GmbH!
results!(2010).!
The!average!amount!of!licensing!revenues!registered!in!FY!2011!by!the!respondents!to!
333.2!K,!while!the!average!value!of!the!royalties!obtained!
;! according! to! Empirica! GmbH,! the!
average!licensing!income!in!2010!is! !715!K.!
Finally,! regarding! the! number! of! new! spin1off! companies! created! in! FY! 2011,! the!
respondents!to!the!ProTon!Europe!survey!generated!on!average!1.9!new!firms,!whereas!
the!corresponding!result!from!the!ASTP!survey!in!FY!2008!was!2.5!new!companies.!The!
average! number! of! new! spin1offs! created! by! the! KTOs! responding! to! the! CEMI1EPFL!
survey! in! FY! 2007! was! 4.1! new! firms! per! KTO,! whereas! KTOs! monitored! by! Empirica!
GmbH!survey!created!on!average!3.1!new!spin1off!companies!in!2010.!
By!considering!the!empirical!evidence!regarding!North$America!provided!by!the!annual!
surveys!carried!out!by!AUTM,!it!is!worth!pointing!out!that!for!American!KTOs,!the!main!
focus! is! represented! by! licensing! activities.! This! consideration! could! help! in! partially!
explaining!the! better! performances! of! AUTM! respondents,! if! compared! with! ASTP! and!
CEMI! respondents,! and! 1! even! more! 1! with! ProTon! respondents! (whose! KTOs! have! a!
wider! range! of! responsibilities).! In! particular,! from! AUTM! results,! it! emerges! that! 183!
KTOs!participated!to!the!FY!2010!U.S.!survey.!In!2007,!U.S.!KTOs!average!age!was!18.5!
years!and!their!average!size!in!2008!was!about!10!FTEs.!The!average!age!emerging!from!
the!Canadian!survey!(2006)!was!12.2!years,!their!average!size!being!9.9!FTEs!in!FY!2008.!
Regarding!disclosing!and!patenting!activities,!the!evidence!provided!by!the!AUTM!survey!
shows!that!on!average!in!2010!US!KTOs!registered!about!112.8!invention!disclosures!and!
filed! about! 67.1! priority! patent! applications.! From! the! results! obtained! by! the! AUTM!
Canadian! survey,! it! emerges! that! on! average! in! 2010! (n=40)! the! responding! KTOs!
registered!43.3!invention!disclosures!and!filed!23.2!priority!patent!applications.!
According! to! the! AUTM! results,! the! average! number! of! licences/options! executed! by!
responding!U.S.!KTOs!in!2010!is!29.3!contracts,!while!the!corresponding!result!achieved!
by! the! Canadian! KTOs! in! the! same! year! is! 11.2! agreements.! The! average! amount! of!
licensing! revenues! registered! in! 2010! by! the! U.S.! KTOs! is!
9.9! M,! while! the!
average!value!of!the!royalties!obtained!by!the!Canadian!respondents!in!the!same!year!is!
1.1!M.!
Finally,! regarding! the! number! of! new! spin1off! companies! yearly! created,! the! U.S.!
respondents!to!the!AUTM!survey!in!2010!generated!on!average!3.5!new!firms,!whereas!
the!corresponding!result!about!Canada!in!the!same!year!is!1.2!new!companies!per!KTO.!
!
!
28"
The!empirical!evidence!obtained!by!different!national!surveys!carried!out!in!the!South\
East$ Asian$ region! (regarding! China,! Japan! and! South! Korea)! shows! that! on! average!
Chinese!KTOs!employed!14!FTEs!in!FY!2010,!while!for!Japanese!ones!the!average!size!in!
FY!2004!was!15.8!FTEs.!Korean!KTOs,!being!4.2!years!old!in!FY!2007,!were!employing!in!
FY!2005!an!average!number!of!4.8!FTEs.!
Regarding!disclosing!and!patenting!activities!in!China,!on!average!in!2010!national!KTOs!
(n=827)!filed!about!65.4!priority!patent!applications.!At!the!end!of!2010,!Chinese!KTOs!
were! holding! an! active! patent! portfolio! including! on! average! 116.3! patents! (mostly!
issued! by! the! Chinese! patent! and! trademark! office).! The! average! number! of!
licences/options!executed!by!Chinese!KTOs!in!2010!was!about!1.9!contracts,!while!the!
average!amount!of!licensing!revenues!registered!in!the!same!year!was! 73.4!K.!Finally,!
regarding!the!spin1off!activities,!in!2010!the!respondents!to!the!survey!carried!out!by!the!
Chinese!Ministry!of!Education!(MOE)!generated!on!average!142.5!new!firms!per!KTO.!!
The!evidence!available!about!Japan!shows!that!on!average!in!2010!KTOs!responding!to!
the!MEXT!(Japan!Ministry!of!Education,!Culture,!Sports,!Science!and!Technology)!survey!
(n=141)! registered! 46! invention! disclosures! and! filed! 45.2! priority! patent! applications.!
The!average!volume!of!their!patent!portfolio!at!the!end!of!the!year!included!46.8!active!
patents.!The!average!number!of!licences/options!executed!by!Japanese!KTOs!in!2010!is!
26.4! contracts,! while! in! the! same! year! the! average! amount! of! licensing! revenues! is!
73.7! K! per! KTO.! In! 2005! the! respondents! to! the! survey! carried! out! by! the! Japanese!
Ministry!of!Economy,!Trade!and!Industry!(METI)!created!on!average!4!new!firms.!
Regarding! South# Korea,! on! average! in! 2007! national! KTOs! filed! 52.3! priority! patent!
applications! and! executed! about! 6.8! licences/options,! while! the! average! amount! of!
generated!on!average!4.3!new!firms!per!KTO.!
Finally,! regarding! Oceania,! the! empirical! evidence! obtained! about! Australia! by! the!
survey! (n=72)! carried! out! by! the! Australian! Government ! Department! of! Innovation,!
Industry,!Science!and!Research,!shows!that!on!average!in!2011!national!KTOs!employed!
9.5!FTEs.!
From! the! evidence! available! about! disclosing,! patenting! and! licensing! activities,! it!
emerges!that!on!average!in!2011!Austrialian!KTOs!registered!23.7!invention!disclosures!
and!filed!13.2!priority!patent!applications.!At!the!end!of!the!year,!Australian!KTOs!were!
holding!an!average!active!patent!portfolio!including!152.8!patents.!The!average!number!
of!licences/options!executed!by!Australian!KTOs!in!2009!was!about!7.0!contracts,!while!
1!M.!
Finally,! regarding! spin1off! creation,! in! 2009! each! Australian! KTO! generated! on! average!
0.2!new!firms.!
!
29"
4.$Respondents$$
by$country$and$type$of$PROs$
!
As!shown!in!table!4.1.!329$KTOs$have$participated$to$the$last$ProTon$Europe$
Survey,!providing!information!about!FY!2011.!
329$responding$
KTOs$in$20
$
Table$4.1$ $Respondents$by$country$(2011)$
Countries$
United!Kingdom!
Spain!
Italy!
Ireland!
Denmark!
Total#n#
n$
163!
65!
61!
26!
14!
329#
UK!
ES!
IT!
IE!
DK!
%$
49.5!
19.8!
18.5!
7.9!
4.3!
100.0#
Source:#ProTon!Europe#
$
Respondents! to! the! 2011! ProTon! Europe! survey! operate! in! five! countries!
(table! 4.2):! UK! (n=163),! Spain! (n=65),! Italy! (n=61),! Ireland! (n=26)! and!
Denmark!(n=14)!and!they!do!represent!a!nice!mix!of!countries!which!are!at!
different!stage!of!development!of!KT!practices.!All!five!countries!have!well!
organised!KTOs!and!national!networks.!
...$from$5$European$
$
In! particular,! UK! provides! the! highest! contribution! to! the! survey,!
accounting! for! 49.5%! of! the! sample,! Spain! and! Italy! represent! lower,! still!
consistent! shares,! accounting! respectively! for! 19.8%! and! 18.5%! of! the!
sample.! Finally,! Ireland! and! Denmark! contribution! to! the! 2011! sample! of!
the!ProTon!survey!is!7.9%!and!4.3%!respectively!(figure!4.1).!
...$with$UK$KTOs$
accounting$for$
49.5%$of$the$sample$
Table$4.2$\$Respondents$by$country$(FY$2006\11)$
Country$
UK!
Spain!
Italy!
Ireland!
Denmark!
Belgium!
Portugal!
Germany!
France!
Greece!
Finland!
Austria!
UK!
ES!
IT!
IE!
DK!
BE!
PT!
DE!
FR!
EL!
FIN!
AU!
2006$
N$
%$
162! 49.8!
61!
18.8!
61!
18.8!
1!
0.3!
24!
7.4!
4!
1.2!
1!
0.3!
3!
0.9!
0!
0.0!
0!
0.0!
1!
0.3!
1!
0.3!
2008$
N$
%$
160! 52.5!
63!
20.7!
54!
17.7!
1!
0.3!
13!
4.3!
1!
0.3!
5!
1.6!
2!
0.7!
1!
0.3!
1!
0.3!
0!
0.0!
0!
0.0!
!
30"
2010$
N$
%$
130! 43.8!
61!
20.5!
61!
20.5!
26!
8.8!
13!
4.4!
4!
1.3!
0!
0.0!
0!
0.0!
0!
0.0!
0!
0.0!
0!
0.0!
0!
0.0!
2011$
n$
%$
163! 49.5!
65!
19.8!
61!
18.5!
26!
7.9!
14!
4.3!
0!
0.0!
0!
0.0!
0!
0.0!
0!
0.0!
0!
0.0!
0!
0.0!
0!
0.0!
Poland!
PL!
Total#
Other!countries3
All#Countries#
1!
316#
9!
325#
0.3!
97.2#
2.8!
100.0#
0!
300#
5!
305#
0.0!
98.4#
1.6!
100.0#
0!
295!
0!
295!
0.00!
100.0#
0.0!
100.0#
0!
329#
5!
329#
0.0!
100.0#
0.0!
100.0#
!
Figure$4.1$\$Contribution$to$the$sample$by$country$(2011;$n=329)$
IE
7.9%
DK
4.3%
IT
18.5%
UK
49.5%
ES
19.8%
$
Oldest$KTOs$are$
located$in$Spain,$UK$
and$Denmark$
Responding!countries!show!differences!in!the!characteristics!and!maturity!
of! their! KT! process.! On! the! one! side,! Spain,! UK! and! Denmark! have! more!
consolidated! experiences,! each!KTO! showing! respectively! an! average$ age!
of! 18.9,! 17.5! and! 12.9! years.! On! the! other! side,! Italy! (6.5! years)! has!
younger!KTOs!(figure!4.2).!!
Figure$4.2$\$
$(2011)$
$
Source:!ProTon!Europe!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3
! This! category! includes:! Austria,! Belgium,! Czech! Republic,! Finland,! France,! Greece,! Poland,!
Sweden,!Turkey.!
31"
!
#
!
In! fact,! with! over! 98%! of! them! being! established! since! year! 2000,! the! average! age! of!
Italian! KTOs! is! 6.5! years,! against! the! average! age! calculated! for! all! countries,! which! is!
equal!to!14!(table!4.3).!
Table$4.3$\$KTOs'$year$of$foundation$
foundation$
Up!to!1982!
198311987!
198811992!
199311997!
199812002!
200312007!
200812012!
Number#of#
KTOs#
Average#KTOs'#
age#(years)#
n$
11!
16!
53!
37!
93!
51!
10!
Total$
%$
4.0!
5.9!
19.6!
13.7!
34.3!
18.8!
3.7!
271!
100.0!
14.0#
Denmark$
n$
%$
0!
0.0!
0!
0.0!
0!
0.0!
4!
50.0!
3!
37.5!
1!
12.5!
0!
0.0!
n$
0!
0!
0!
0!
13!
34!
7!
Italy$
%$
0.0!
0.0!
0.0!
0.0!
24.1!
63.0!
13.0!
8#
54#
100.0!
100.0!
12.9#
6.5#
Spain$
n$
%$
0!
0.0!
8!
13.1!
29!
47.5!
15!
24.6!
5!
8.2!
4!
6.6!
0!
0.0!
n$
11!
8!
24!
18!
72!
12!
3!
61#
148# 100.0!
100.0!
18.9#
UK$
%$
7.4!
5.4!
16.2!
12.2!
48.6!
8.1!
2.0!
17.5#
!
In!general,!with!regard!to!single!PROs!rather!than!single!countries!(figure!
4.3),!it!emerges!quite!clearly!that!about!one!fifth!of!respondents!can!be!
considered!as!
!and!despite!their!participation!in!
the! survey,! their! answers! show! that! they! are! just! starting! explicit! and!
codified!KT!activities.!!
Another! large! portion! of! the! group! is! represented! by! PROs! which! are!
active! in! the! field,! have! a! stable! KTO! with! a! small! number! of! staff! and!
standard! procedures! to! manage! KT! initiatives! (KTOs! founded! in! the!
199312007!period).!!
European$KTOs$are$on$
average$14$years$old$
KT$experience$vs.$$
KT$performance$
The! third! and! last! group! is! composed! by! about! one! third! of! total! KTOs!
(founded!before!1993)!which!are!well1staffed!and!experienced,!and!manage!a!relevant!
range!of!activities!including!IP!management,!licensing!and!spin1off!support.!
!
$
$
$
$
$
32"
$
$
$
Figure$4.3$ $
(n=271)$
$
Source:!ProTon!Europe#
Concerning!the!type$of$PROs$served!(figure!4.4),!82.7%!are!universities.!Only!4.6%!are!
hospitals!and!the!residual!12.7%!are!other!types!of!RTOs.!
$
Figure$4.4$\$Types$of$PROs$served$by$the$responding$KTOs$(n=140)$
$
Other
12.7%
Hospital
4.6%
University
82.7%
$
Source:!ProTon!Europe#
!
The!starting!point!of!any!effort!to!transfer!results!from!public!research!is!obviously!that!
of! investing! in! research! activities.! With! regard! to! this! specific! question,! average!
Research$ and$ Development$ (R&D)$ expenditure! in! 2011! is! equal! to! 41! M! per! KTO!
(table! 4.4),! 111.2%! if! compared! with! 2009! performance! (the! average! data! referring! to!
2010! was! 45.6! M! per! KTO).! More! precisely,! in! 2011! 30.8%! of! respondents! did! not!
invest!more!than! 10!M!in!R&D!activities;!17.1%!of!them!invested! 10!M!t
20.5%!
14.5%!
7.7%!
9.4%! 100!M!
!
33"
R&D$expenditure$$
per$KTO$in$FY$2010$
R&D$expenditure$in$
2010$was$greater$than$
$
of$European$KTOs$$
!
In!the!sample,!no!PRO!registered!more!
2011.!It!is!well!known,!however,!that!this!kind!of!data!is!particularly!difficult!to!collect!in!
a!homogeneous!way,!even!from!organisations!operating!in!the!same!country.!
$
Table$4.4$\$PROs'$R&D$expenditure$in$FY$2010\2011!
2010$
$
!
>101!
!
>251!
!
>501!
!
>751!
!
>1001!
!
>200!
Total#number#of#KTOs#
Total#R&D#expenditure#
Average#R&D#expenditure##
n$
31!
27!
22!
15!
6!
16!
0!
117#
%$
26.5!
23.1!
18.8!
12.8!
5.1!
13.7!
0.0!
100.0!
5.3#B#
#45.6#M#
2011$
n$
36!
20!
24!
17!
9!
11!
0!
117!
%$
30.8!
17.1!
20.5!
14.5!
7.7!
9.4!
0.0!
100.0!
#
#
!
With! regard! to! the! composition! of!
expenditure! (figure! 4.5),! 45%! is! public! funded! research,! including!
source! (36.8%),! together! with! funds! from! industry,! including! contract!
research! and! consulting,! collaborative! research,! technical! services! and!
training! for! industry! (13.9%).! Donations! account! for! 0.9%.! The! residual!
3.3%!is!represented!by!other!financial!sources.!
This! is! one! of! the! issues! where! national! differences! may! emerge,! and!
further! investigation! on! this! issue! is! therefore! necessary.! However,! the!
graph!illustrates!once!again!that,!in!general,!R&D!activities!carried!out!by!
European!PROs!can!hardly!be!sustained!by!contracted!and!collaborative!
research!alone.!
Figure$4.5$\$Sources$of$PROs'$R&D$expenditure$in$2011$
34"
expenditure$is$public$
funded$research$$
European$PROs$are$
not$able$yet$to$$
self\sustain$their$$
R&D$activities$$
Other!
sources
3.3%
Industry
13.9%
PROs'!
own!funds
36.8%
Government
45.0%
Donations
0.9%
Source:#ProTon!Europe!Survey#
!
A!schematic!representation!about!the!key!features!characterizing!respondents!as!well!as!
the!PROs!served!in!2011!is!reported!in!box!1.!!
!
Box$1$\$Responding$KTOs$and$PROs$served$in$2011$
$
Number$of$respondents:$$
!
$
!
329!KTOs!
Types$of$PROs$served:!
universities!
82.7%!are!
14!years!
!
!
4.6%!are!hospitals!
12.7%!are!other!types!of!RTOs!
!
$
$4.8!B!in!total!(n=117)!
41.0!M!per!KTO!
!
of#which:#
!
!
!
!
45%!from!government!
36.8%!from!
13.9%!from!industry!!
0.9%!from!donations!
3.3%!from!other!sources!
35"
5.$Characteristics$of$the$KTOs$
!
The!consolidation!of!KTOs!in!European!PROs!has!reached!different!levels!
of!maturity!in!different!countries,!and!differences!also!exist!within!single!
countries.! Differences! among! countries! also! exist! because! the!
responsibilities! of! KTOs! sometimes! vary.! Nonetheless,! one! of! the! best!
indicators!to!assess!the!maturity!of!the!KTO!structure!is!the! number!of!
total$staff!(table!5.1).!With!regard!to!2011!data,!the!average$number$of$
staff$(in$FTEs)$is$8.3,!with!a!small!increase!with!regard!to!2010.!
Average$staffing$$
level$in$2011$for$
European$KTOs$$
is$8.3$FTEs$$
More!precisely,!37.2%!of!KTOs!have!3!people!or!less,!a!further!22%!have!3!to!6!people,!
28,8%! have! 6! to! 15! people,! and! the! residual! 12.1%! have! more! than! 15! people.! In!
particular,! 3.8%! of! the! total! number! of! respondents! (n=132)! exhibit! more! than! 30!
people! and! are! obviously! engaged! in! activities! which! go! beyond! KT! in! its! strictest!
definition.!!
Table$5.1$\$Total$KTOs'$staff$(FTEs)#
KTOs'$staff$
(FTEs)$
!
>11
>21
>31
>41
>51
>61
>81
>101
>151
>201
>30!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Number#of#KTOs#
Total#FTEs#
Average#FTEs#per#
KTOs#
2006$
2008$
2010$
2011$
N$
2!
16!
20!
17!
14!
9!
16!
13!
13!
5!
6!
9!
%$
1.4!
11.4!
14.3!
12.1!
10.0!
6.4!
11.4!
9.3!
9.3!
3.6!
4.3!
6.4!
N$
10!
17!
22!
15!
17!
3!
11!
14!
18!
5!
6!
6!
%$
6.9!
11.8!
15.3!
10.4!
11.8!
2.1!
7.6!
9.7!
12.5!
3.5!
4.2!
4.2!
n$
18!
22!
21!
10!
15!
4!
15!
16!
13!
6!
6!
6!
%$
11.9!
14.6!
13.9!
6.6!
9.9!
2.6!
9.9!
10.6!
8.6!
4.0!
4.0!
4.0!
n$
12!
20!
17!
10!
9!
10!
17!
8!
13!
5!
6!
5!
%$
9.1!
15.2!
12.9!
7.6!
6.8!
7.6!
12.9!
6.1!
9.8!
3.8!
4.5!
3.8!
140#
100.0!
144#
100.0!
152#
100.0!
132#
100.0!
1,161.5#
1,335.0#
1,175.4#
1,091.5#
8.3#
9.7#
7.7#
#
8.3#
#
!
for! which! we! have! detailed! data! (table! 5.2).! In! particular,! it! is! quite!
evident! that! the! total! average! size! of! 8.3! FTEs! is! the! result! of! the!
combination!of!large!KTOs!in!Spain!on!the!one!side!(with!an!average!of!
12.7! FTEs! per! KTO)! where! such! offices! are! involved! in! a! wide! range! of!
!
36"
Spanish$KTOs$are$the$
largest$in$the$sample,$
with$average$staffing$
level$of$12.7$FTEs$$
6.!IP!management!
activities,!and!Denmark!and!Italy!on!the!other!side,!where!KTOs!are!smaller!(4.8!FTEs!in!
Denmark! and! 3.8! FTEs! in! Italy)! and! are! probably! mostly! involved! in! activities! strictly!
related!to!the!legal!protection!of!inventions,!patenting,!licensing!and!spin1off!creation.!!
!
Table$5.2$\$Total$KTOs'$staff$(FTEs),$by$country$(2011)$
Country$
Total!FTEs!
Top!5!KTOs!!
(%!on!total!FTEs)!
Average!FTEs!per!KTO!
Number#of#KTOs#
All$countries$
1,091.5!
260.0!
(23.8%)!
8.3!
132!
Denmark$
66.7!
54.5!
(81.7%)!
4.8!
14!
Italy$
201.4!
55!
(27.3%)!
3.8!
53!
Spain$
823.3!
260!
(31.6%)!
12.7!
65!
!
Regarding! the! trends! observable! in! the! average! KTOs! staffing! levels! by!
country! in! the! 200812011!
registered! a! significant! increase! if! compared! with! data! referring! to! FY!
2008! (+14.3
decreasing! trend! (11.6%! for! Spain! and! 15%! for! Italy! in! the! period! 20081
2011).!
+14.3%$increase$of$
staffing$level$for$
Danish$KTOs$in$the$
2008\2011$period$
Average$number$of$KTOs'$staff$(FTEs)
Figure$5.1$\$
16
12.9 13.4
12.7
12.2
14
12
10
8
6
4.2
5.1 5.2 4.8
4.0 3.5 3.5 3.8
4
2
0
Denmark
2008
Italy
2009
Spain
2010
2011
$
!
Annual$
! in! 2011! is! equal! to$ 375.2$ K$ per$ respondent,!
registering! a! decrease! (138.3%! if! compared! with! the! result! referring! to!
2010! and! 114.2%! if! compared! with! 2006).! In! particular,! in! 2010,! 8%! of!
responding!KTOs!has!budgets!whose!amounts!are!higher!t
corresponding!share!was!21.1%!in!2010,!7.7%!in!2009,!15%!in!2008!and!
10%!in!2006!(table!5.3).!!
Average$annual$
budget$in$FY$2010$$
for$European$KTOs$is$
$
37"
!
!
$
$
Table$5.3$\$Annual$KTOs'$budget$
Annual$KTOs'$budget$
$
0!
>01
>501
2006$
2008$
2010$
2011$
n$
%$
N$
%$
n$
%$
N$
%$
1!
2.5!
4!
3.7!
7!
22.2!
31!
27.4!
4!
10.0!
11!
10.3!
8!
22.0!
8!
7.1!
10!
25.0!
15!
14.0!
16!
20.1!
14!
12.4!
>1001
8!
20.0!
16!
15.0!
14!
20.4!
12!
10.6!
>2001
5!
12.5!
18!
16.8!
13!
20.5!
13!
11.5!
>3001
4!
10.0!
10!
9.3!
10!
21.4!
13!
11.5!
4!
10.0!
17!
15.9!
21!
19.0!
13!
11.5!
>1,000!
4!
10.0!
16!
15.0!
12!
21.1!
9!
8.0!
Number#of#KTOs#
40# 100.0! 107# 100.0!
101#
100.0#
113#
100.0!
>5001
Total#KTOs'#budget#
4#M#
Average#budget#per#KTO#
!
The!average!KTOs!budget!is!different!in!the!two!countries!for!which!we! Average$amount$of$
have! detailed! data:! Italy! and! Spain! (table! 5.4).! In! particular,! it! is! quite! budget$is$higher$for$
evident! that! the! average! budget! of! 375.2! K! referring! to! the! whole! Spanish$KTOs$than$$
sample! (n=113)! is! the! result! of! the! combination! of! large! amounts! of! for$Danish$and$Italian$
financial!resources!devoted!by!universities!to!KT!activities!in!Spain!on!the! ones$$
one!side!(the!average!budget!being! 648.4!K!per!KTO),!where!KTOs!are!
bigger!and!more!experienced,!and!more!modest!investment!made!by!Italian!universities!
on!the!other!side!(the!average!annual!budget!being! 116.1!K!per!KTO),!where!KTOs!are!
younger!and!smaller.!
Table$5.4$ KTOs'$budget$by$country$(FY$2011)$
Country$
Total!annual!budget!
Top!5!KTOs!!
(%!on!total!FTEs)!
Average!annual!budget!per!KTO!
Number#of#KTOs#
All$countries$
!
!
(38.9%)!
!
113#
Italy$
Spain$
!
!
(47.9%)!
!
!
(46.2%)!
!
58#
!
55#
Source:#ProTon!Europe!!
!
!
A! schematic! representation! of! the! key! characteristics! of! responding! KTOs! in! 2011! is!
reported!in!box!2.!
38"
6.!IP!management!
Box$2$\$Characteristics$of$responding$KTOs$in$2011$
$
KTO$staff:$
(n=132)!
!
1,091.5!FTEs!in!total!
8.3!FTEs!per!KTO!
!
KTO$budget:$$
$42.4!M!in!total!(n=113)!
375.2!K!per!KTO!
$
!
39"
6.$IP$management$
!
An! important! indicator! of! the! intensity! of! the! KT! activities! carried! out! in! a! PROs! is!
represented!by!the!number!of!invention$disclosures.!These!surely!represent!a!relevant!
quantitative!indicator,!although!a!high!number!of!disclosures!does!not!necessarily!imply!
a!high!quality!of!inventions.!!
Data! from! 283! KTOs! (table! 6.1)! indicate! that! 29.3%! of! the! respondents!
did!not!collect!any!invention!disclosure!in!FY!2011.!These!KTOs!are!those!
which! have! just! started! codifying! KT! activities! and/or! do! not! have! any!
specific! invention! disclosure! practice.! On! average,! however,! every$ KTO$
has$ 22.4$ disclosures,! but! the! number! would! be! larger! (31.7! disclosures!
Each$European$KTO$
registered$on$average$
22.4$invention$
$
15.5%! of! PROs! have! 1! to! 5! invention! disclosures! and! 10.2%! have! 6! to! 10.! The! 45%! of!
PROs!have!more!than!10!invention!disclosures!and!among!these,!21.3%!have!more!than!
30!invention!disclosures.!
The! average! number! of! invention! disclosures! grew! in! the! 200612011!
period! from! 18.3! disclosures! in! FY! 2006! to! 19.9! in! 2008! (+8.7%),! then!
keeping!stable!in!200812010,!with!about!19!disclosures!per!KTOs!in!both!
years!surveyed!and!then!increasing!to!22.4!disclosures!in!2011!(+16.1%!if!
compared!with!2010!and!+22.4%!if!compared!with!2006).!!
compared$with$FY$
2010$
Table$6.1$\$Annual$number$of$invention$disclosures$$
Invention$
disclosures$
2006$
2008$
2011$
16120!
21125!
26130!
31140!
41160!
611100!
>100!
N$
92!
51!
38!
20!
12!
13!
13!
11!
19!
9!
9!
%$
32.1!
17.8!
13.2!
7.0!
4.2!
4.5!
4.5!
3.8!
6.6!
3.1!
3.1!
N$
96!
36!
44!
24!
15!
8!
12!
15!
16!
17!
10!
%$
32.8!
12.3!
15.0!
8.2!
5.1!
2.7!
4.1!
5.1!
5.5!
5.8!
3.4!
n$
69!
48!
42!
20!
19!
11!
6!
16!
22!
11!
7!
%$
25.5!
17.7!
15.5!
7.4!
7.0!
4.1!
2.2!
5.9!
8.1!
4.1!
2.6!
n$
83!
44!
29!
26!
15!
13!
13!
13!
18!
18!
11!
%$
29.3!
15.5!
10.2!
9.2!
5.3!
4.6!
4.6!
4.6!
6.4!
6.4!
3.9!
Number#of#KTOs#
287#
100.0!
293#
100.0!
271#
100.0!
283!
100.0!
0!
115!
6110!
11115!
Total#number#of#
disclosures#
Average#number#of#
disclosures#per#KTO#
5,261#
5,841#
5,243#
6,337#
18.3#
19.9#
19.3#
22.4#
!
2010$
40"
7.!Licensing!
!
If!we!look!at!the!situation$of$single$countries!(table!6.2),!UK!and!Danish!
universities! have! an! average! number! of! invention! disclosures! which! is!
the!highest!among!participant!countries!(about!26!invention!disclosures!
per! responding! KTO),! followed! by! Spanish! and! Irish! performances!
(respectively!20.7!and!15.7!invention!disclosures!per!KTO).!In!2011!each!
UK$and$Danish$KTOs$
are$top$invention$
disclosers$
Italian!KTO!registered!on!average!9.4!invention!disclosures!per!KTO.!
Each$European$KTO$
registered$on$average$
31.7$invention$
disclosures$in$FY$2011$
(non\zero$values)$
The! results! are! significantly! higher! if! we! include! in! the! sample! only!
is,!if!we!consider!only!the!non\zero$values!in!the!sample!(table!6.2).!By!
considering! the! bulk! of! the! surveyed! countries,! on! average! each! KTO!
registered! in! 2011! 31.7! invention! disclosures.! If! we! observe! the!
evidence! of! single! countries,! UK! KTOs! are! again! the! best! performers,!
!
achieving! an! average! of! 44.9! invention! disclosures! per! KTO.! Lower! but! still! significant!
results! have! been! registered! by! Danish! and! Spanish! KTOs,! which! in! 2011! registered!
respectively!33.2!and!23.3!invention!disclosures.!For!Italian!KTOs!the!average!number!of!
inventions!disclosed!in!2011!is!11.7.!
Table$6.2$ $Invention$disclosures$by$country$(2011)$
Country$
All$countries$
Total!disclosures!
6,337!
Top!5!KTOs!!
1,242!
(%!on!total!
(19.6%)!
disclosures)!
22.4!
per!KTO!
per!KTO!!
31.7!
(non1zero!values)!
Number#of#KTOs#
283#
Denmark$
365!
Ireland$
407!
Italy$
468!
Spain$
1,282!
UK$
4,222!
304!
(83.3%)!
n.a.!
26.1!
15.7!
9.4!
20.7!
26.9!
33.2!
n.a.!
11.7!
23.3!
44.9!
14#
26#
50#
62#
157#
194!
448!
1,214!
(41.5%)! (34.9%)! (28.8%)!
!
+33.9%$increase$$
of$invention$
disclosures$for$
Spanish$KTOs$in$the$
2008\2011$period$
Regarding!the!trends$observable$in$the$average$number$of$disclosures$by$
country$ (non\zero$ values)! in! the! 200812011! period! (figure! 6.1),! Spanish,!
Italian!and!UK!KTOs!registered!a!significant!increase!if!compared!with!data!
referring! to! 2008! (+33.9%! for! Spain,! +11.4%! for! Italy! and! +10.6%! for! UK!
respectively),! while! Irish! KTOs! kept! stable! in! the! two1year! period! 20091
2010.!
41"
!
Figure$6.1$\$Trend$of$average$number$of$disclosures$by$country$(non\zero$values)$
Average$number$of$invention$disclosures
$
50
+10.6%!
+23.4%!
45
40
35
30
!
33.2
27.3
4%!
26.9
26.4
25
+33.9%!
10.5%!
+11.4%!
20
15
44.9
41.5
40.6
38.3
21.4 23.3
20.6
17.4
21.7 21.6
10.5 11.5 11.7

7.8
10
5
0
Denmark
Italy
2008
Spain
2009
UK
2010
Ireland
2011
$
!
A! further! step! in! the! KT! process! is! represented! by! the! filing! of! priority$ Each$European$KTO$
patent$applications!(to!both!national!and!international!patent!offices)4.! filed$on$average$$
These!are!not!necessarily!linked!to!inventions!disclosed!in!the!same!year! 11.8$priority$patent$
but,! rather,! to! previously! disclosed! Inventions.! As! we! can! observe! in! applications$in$2011$
table! 6.3,! 30.5%! of! total! PROs! did! not! apply! for! any! patent! in! 2011.!
About!25%!presented!1!to!5!applications!and!about!31%!presented!6!to!
20!applications.!The!remaining!14%!made!more!than!20!applications,!with!the!top!2.8%!
of!KTOs!which!made!more!than!60!applications.!Therefore,!the!average!number!of!11.8!
applications!per!KTO!is!the!result!of!quite!different!situations,!ranging!from!those!KTOs!
with!no!applications!(n=87)!to!those!with!more!than!100!(n=6).!
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4
!International!patent!offices!include!both!European!Patent!Office!(EPO)!and!United!States!Patent!
and!Trademark!Office!(USPTO).!
42"
7.!Licensing!
$
Table$6.3$\$Annual$number$of$priority$patent$applications5$
Priority$
patent$
applications$
0!
112!
315!
6110!
11115!
16120!
21130!
31160!
611100!
>100!
Total#number#
of#KTOs#
Total#number#
of#priority#
patent#
applications#
Average#
number#of#
priority#patent#
applications#
per#KTO#
2006$
2008$
2010$
2011$
n$
98!
49!
36!
32!
22!
18!
14!
12!
3!
3!
%$
34.1!
17.1!
12.5!
11.1!
7.7!
6.3!
4.9!
4.2!
1.0!
1.0!
n$
118!
12!
42!
44!
29!
13!
16!
14!
5!
3!
%$
39.9!
4.1!
14.2!
14.9!
9.8!
4.4!
5.4!
4.7!
1.7!
1.0!
n$
87!
34!
40!
49!
25!
16!
9!
11!
3!
3!
%$
31.4!
12.3!
14.4!
17.7!
9.0!
5.8!
3.2!
4.0!
1.1!
1.1!
n$
87!
37!
34!
53!
24!
10!
10!
22!
2!
6!
%$
30.5!
13.0!
11.9!
18.6!
8.4!
3.5!
3.5!
7.7!
0.7!
2.1!
287#
100.0!
296#
100.0!
277#
100.0!
285#
100.0!
2,496#
2,951#
2,571#
3,358#
8.1#
10.0#
9.3#
11.8#
!
UK$KTOs$show$the$
highest$average$
number$of$priority$
patent$applications$
(14.4)$filed$in$FY$2011$$
If!we!look!at!the!number!of!priority$patent$applications$filed$in$2011$by$
country! (table! 6.4),! UK! KTOs! show! the! highest! average! number! of!
applications!(14.4).!Denmark!and!Spain!also!exhibit!in!2011!a!consistent!
average! number! of! priority! patent! applications! (12.2! and! 9.7! priority!
patent! applications! per! KTO! respectively).! The! corresponding! average!
number! for! Italian! and! Irish! KTOs! is! respectively! equal! to! 6.3! and! 5.3!
applications.!!
By!considering!just!the!non\zero$values!in!the!sample,!on!average!each!
European! KTO! filed! in! 2011! 17! priority! patent! applications.! If! we!
observe! the! situation! of! single! countries,! UK! KTOs! registered! on!
average! 24! priority! patent! applications! per! KTO.! Lower! but! still!
significant! results! have! been! registered! by! Danish! and! Spanish! KTOs,!
which!in!2011!filed!respectively!17.1!and!11.5!patent!applications.!For!
Italian!KTOs!the!average!number!of!priority!patent!applications!filed!in!2011!is!7.8.!
!
Each$European$KTO$
filed$on$average$17$
priority$patent$
applications$in$FY$2011$
(non\zero$values)$
$
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5
!Filed!to!both!national!and!international!patent!offices!(namely!the!EPO!and!the!USPTO).!
43"
!
$
Table$6.4$ $Priority$patent$applications$by$country$(2011)$
Country$
Total!priority!
Top!5!KTOs!!
(%!on!total!priority!
patent!
applications)!
Average!priority!
per!KTO!
Average!priority!
per!KTO!(non1zero!
values)!
Number#of#KTOs#
All$countries$
Denmark$
Ireland$
Italy$
Spain$
UK$
3,358!
171!
139!
319!
612!
2,256!
845!
(25.2%)!
138!
(80.7%)!
n.a.!
11.8!
12.2!
5.3!
6.3!
9.7!
14.4!
17.0!
17.1!
n.a.!
7.8!
11.5!
24.0!
285#
14#
26#
51#
63#
157#
137!
201!
845!
(42.9%)! (32.8%)! (37.5%)!
!
Regarding!the!trends$observable$in$the$average$number$of$priority$patent$
applications$ filed$ by$ country$ (non\zero$ values)! in! the! 200812011! period!
(figure!6.2),!Danish!KTOs!registered!a!significant!increase!if!compared!with!
data! referring! to! 2008! (+47.4%),! whereas! UK! KTOs! experienced! a! +14.8%!
increase! and! Spanish! KTOs! experienced! a! +12.7%! increase.! The!
performances! of! Italian! KTOs! increased! (+6.8%)! over! the! last! four! years!
surveyed.! The! average! number! of! priority! patent! applications! filed! by!
increased!significantly!over!the!200912010!period!(+207.4%!increase).!
+47.4%$increase$of$
priorities$for$Danish$
KTOs$in$the$2008\
2011$period$
Irish! KTOs!
Figure$6.2$\$Trend$of$average$number$of$priority$patent$applications$by$country$$
(non$zero$values)$
Average$number$of$priority$patent$
applications
$
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
+14,8%!
39.6
+47,4%!
+207.4%!
+12.7%!
27.3
12.9
11.6
28.9
+6,8%!
22.6
17.1
Denmark
2008
11.3
12.2
10.2
7.3
7.8
6.1
Italy
23.3
20.9
11.5
9.4
Spain
2009
24.0
UK
2010
Ireland
2011
$
44"
7.!Licensing!
!
!
Each$European$KTO$
held$on$average$
in$portfolio$as$of$
December$31st$2011$
Table! 6.5! presents! the! number! of!

folio$ at$
the$end$of$each$year!(i.e.!the!stock!of!active!patents!held!by!PROs!at!that!
moment! and! the! applications! filed).! With! regard! to! 2011,! 29.6%! of! KTOs!
have! no! patents,! 11.1%! have! between! 1! and! 5! patents! and! 6.4%! have!
between! 6! and! 10! patents.! A! larger! number! of! patents,! between! 11! and!
60,!is!held!by!24.3%!of!respondents,!and!the!remaining!28.6%!have!more!
than!60!patents,!with!the!top!19.3%!holding!more!than!100!patents.!These!numbers!are!
still!far!from!those!of!the!larger!high1tech!corporations,!nonetheless!they!indicate!that!
the!stock!of!patents!held!by!European! PROs!is!certainly! significant!in!scale.!More!than!
one! third!of! KTOs! are! not! really! active! yet,! but! the! others! are! certainly!
+100.2%$increase$in$ very!active.!
the$number$of$active$
patents$in$the$2006\
2011$period$
In! total,! the! 280! respondents! to! this! part! of! the! survey! hold! 22,945!
patents,!with!an!average!number!of!81.9!patents!(including!the!83!PROs!
with! no! patents! at! all),! registering! a! constant! increasing!trend! over! the!
period! surveyed! (+100.2%! if! compared! with! 2006! and! +13.8%! if!
Each$European$KTO$
compared!with!2010).!
held$on$average$70.6$
st
active$patents$in$ Table$6.5$\$Patent$portfolio$as$of$December$31 $of$each$year$
portfolio$as$of$
Active$
st
2006$
2008$
2010$
2011$
December$31patent$$
$2009$
portfolio$
0!
115!
6110!
11115!
16120!
21140!
41160!
611100!
1011200!
2011400!
>400!
Number#of#
KTOs#
Total#
portfolio#
Average#
portfolio#
per#KTO#
n$
106!
44!
18!
11!
16!
28!
12!
19!
18!
7!
5!
%$
37.3!
15.5!
6.3!
3.9!
5.6!
9.9!
4.2!
6.7!
6.3!
2.5!
1.8!
n$
104!
24!
18!
10!
11!
32!
21!
19!
21!
12!
10!
%$
36.9!
8.5!
6.4!
3.5!
3.9!
11.3!
7.4!
6.7!
7.4!
4.3!
3.5!
n$
81!
32!
19!
13!
8!
24!
19!
27!
29!
14!
6!
%$
29.8!
11.8!
7.0!
4.8!
2.9!
8.8!
7.0!
9.9!
10.7!
5.1!
2.2!
n$
83!
31!
18!
12!
8!
25!
23!
26!
28!
17!
9!
%$
29.6!
11.1!
6.4!
4.3!
2.9!
8.9!
8.2!
9.3!
10.0!
6.1!
3.2!
284#
100.0!
282#
100.0!
272#
100.0!
280#
100.0!
11,628#
18,882#
19,596#
22,945#
40.9#
67.0#
72.0#
81.9#
!
UK$KTOs$show$the$
highest$average$
portfolio$(104.1$active$
patents)$in$FY$2011$
!
If!we!look!at!the!data!about!patent$portfolio$as$of$December$31st$2011$
by$ country! (table! 6.6),! we! realize! that! the! major! contribution! to! the!
achievement!of!these!results!is!attributable!to!UK!performances!(n=157),!
45"
!
exhibiting!an!average!number!of!104.1!active!patents!per!KTO.!By!considering!the!results!
achieved!by!the!five!universities!which!in!each!country!obtained!the!best!performances!
! universities),! it! emerges! that! for! the! case! of! the! UK!
such! universities! were! holding! a! total! number! of! 7,450! active! patents! as! of! December!
31st!2011,!with!an!incidence!of!32.5%!on!the!total!volume!referred!to!the!whole!sample!
of!UK!KTOs.!
top#5
are!also!among!the!best!performing!universities!with!
regard! to! the! whole! sample! of! respondents! in! 2011! (n=280),! representing! almost! one!
third!of!the!total!volume!referred!to!the!bulk!of!European!KTOs!responding!to!the!2011!
ProTon!Europe!survey.!
For$Spanish$KTOs,$
For!Spain,!we!can!observe!a!quite!consistent!average!patent!portfolio!
average$portfolio$in$
(62.7! active! patents! per! KTO).! In! this! case,!
! universities! also!
2011$included$62.7$$
account!for!a!significant!share!(43.7%)!of!the!total!volume!referred!to!
$
the!whole!sample!of!Spanish!KTOs,!n=59).!
Italian!data!show!on!average!55.7!active!patents!per!KTO,!with!the!
!universities!accounting!for!39.7%!of!the!total!volume!referred!to!the!
whole!sample!of!Italian!KTOs!(n=50).!
$active$patents$$
$
!
Danish! KTOs! (n=14)! registered! on! average! a! more! modest! patent!
portfolio! (8.3! active! patents).! In! this! case,! the!
! universities!
for$Danish$KTOs!
account!for!87.9%!of!the!total!volume!referred!to!the!whole!sample!of!
Danish! KTOs.! If! such! an! incidence! is! in! part! generated! by! the! better!
performances!achieved!by!such!universities,!in!part!it!is!physiologically!
attributable! to! the! smaller! sample! size! (n=14)! for! Denmark,! impacting! significantly! on!
!universities.!
By! considering! just!the! non\zero$values! in! the!sample,! on! average! each!

Each$European$KTO$
European! KTO! at! the! end! of! FY! 2011! held! in! portfolio! 116.5! active!
held$on$average$
patents.! If! we! observe! the! evidence! of! single! countries,! UK! KTOs! show!
the! highest! volume! of! active! patents,! the! average! portfolio! including!
in$portfolio$as$of$
170.3! active! patents.! Lower! but! still! significant! results! have! been!
December$31st$2011$
registered!by!Spanish!and! Italian!KTOs,!which!as!of!December!31st!2011!
non\zero$values)$
held! respectively! 88! and! 56.9! active! patents.! For! Danish! KTOs,! the! average! number! of!
active!patents!in!2011!is!11.6.!
!
Table$6.6$ $Active$patent$portfolio$by$country$(2011)$
Country$
Total!portfolio!
Top!5!KTOs!!
(%!on!total!
portfolio)!
Average!portfolio!
per!KTO!
Average!portfolio!
per!KTO!!
(non1zero!values)!
Number#of#KTOs#
All$countries$ Denmark$ Italy$

22,945!
116!
2,787!
Spain$
3,697!
UK$
16,345!
7,450!
(32.5%)!
102!
(87.9%)!
81.9!
8.3!
55.7!
62.7!
104.1!
116.5!
11.6!
56.9!
88.0!
170.3!
280#
14#
50#
59#
157#
46"
1,107! 1,616! 7,450!

(39.7%)! (43.7%)! (45.6%)!
7.!Licensing!
!
!
Regarding!the!trends$observable$in$the$patent$portfolio$by$country$(non\zero$values)!in!
the! 200812011! period! (figure! 6.3),! Spanish! KTOs! registered! a! significant! increase! if!
compared! with! data! referring! to! 2008! (+49.4%),! while! Danish! and! Italian! KTOs!
experienced! a! more! modest,! but! still! consistent! growth! trend! (+30.3%! and! +25.6%!
respectively).! Also! UK! KTOs! registered! an! increase! in! the! surveyed! period! (+7.2%).! For!
Irish! KTOs,! the! number! of! patent! portfolio! was! decreased! (119.7%)! in! the! 200912010!
period.!!
Figure$6.3$\$Trend$of$average$patent$portfolio$by$country$(non$zero$values)$
$
Number$of$active$patents
+7.2%!
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
+49.4%!
119.7%!
+25.6%!
+30.3%!
8.9
160 170.3
158.8
144
84.3
75
58.9
57.1
51 56.9
45.3
88
64
51.4
14.9
12 11.6
Denmark
2008
Italy
Spain
2009
UK
2010
Ireland
2011
!
The!total!IPR$expenditure!includes!the!external!legal!fees!paid!for!patent!
applications,! maintenance! and! prosecution! during! the! year! (not! including!
litigation! costs,! if! any).! As! shown! in! table!6.7,! the!average! amount!of! IPR!
protection$in$2011$ expenditure!for!responding!KTOs!has!been!changing!over!the!last!six!years,!
varying!between! 136!K!and! 184!K!in!the!considered!period!(2006111).!
This!result!can!be!partially!attributable!to!the!changes!in!the!sample!of!KTOs!responding!
year!after!year.!
Each$European$KTO$
invested$on$average$$
In!2011,!the!278!respondents!to!this!part!of!the!survey!registered!a!total!expenditure!of!!
51! M,! the! average! expenditure! per! KTO! being! 183.3! K! (+10%! if! compared! with! FY!
2006!and!+34.6%!if!compared!with!FY!2010).!!
In!particular,!37.1%!of!the!respondents!did!not!pay!any!external!legal!fee!in!2011.!For!a!
further! 10.8%! of! KTOs! the! annual! IPR! expenditure! was! no! greater! than! 15! K.! The!
amount!was!between! 15!K!and! 50!K!for!13%!of!the!KTOs.!9.4%!of!them!paid!between!
50!K!and! 100!K,!whereas!26.3%!of!the!sample!registered!legal!fees!between! 0.1!M!
and! 1!M.!Finally,!the!top!3.6%!of!responding!KTOs!paid!more!than! 1!M!for!external!
legal!fees!in!2011.!
!
47"
+49.4%$increase$of$
patent$portfolio$for$
2008\11$period$
!
!
!
!
Table$6.7$\$Annual$IPR$expenditure6$$
IPR$
expenditure$
2006$
2008$
2010$
2011$
n$
119!
38!
15!
13!
17!
%$
46.5!
14.8!
5.9!
5.1!
6.6!
n$
124!
34!
29!
13!
27!
%$
42.5!
11.6!
9.9!
4.5!
9.2!
n$
83!
37!
17!
19!
26!
%$
34.6!
15.4!
7.1!
7.9!
10.8!
n$
103!
30!
18!
18!
26!
%$
37.1!
10.8!
6.5!
6.5!
9.4!
>1001
17!
6.6!
20!
6.8!
20!
8.3!
26!
9.4!
>2001
16!
6.3!
30!
10.3!
20!
8.3!
27!
9.7!
15!
5.9!
10!
3.4!
11!
4.6!
20!
7.2!
6!
2.3!
5!
1.7!
7!
2.9!
10!
3.6!
256#
100.0!
292#
100.0!
240#
100.0!
278#
100.0!
0!
>01
!
>151
!
>301
!
>501
!
>5001
>1,000!
Number#of#
KTOs#
Total#IPR#
expenditure#
#32.7#M!
Average#IPR#
expenditure#per#
KTO#
#136.2#K!
!
If! we! look!at! the!amount! of! IPR$ expenditure$ in$2011$ by$ country! (table! Danish$KTOs$show$the$
6.8),!Danish!KTOs!show!the!highest!amount!invested!in!IPR!protection!(
highest$average$
441.4! K! per! KTO).! However,! it! is! worth! noting! that! Danish! values! are! amount$of$IPR$
significantly! higher! than! their! counterpart! in! other! countries! because! expenditure$in$$FY$
they!include!institution!costs!for!evaluation!of!inventions,!IP!protection,! 2011$
commercialisation! and! use! of! consultants! in! connection! with! KT! (
)$$
activities.! Also! UK! KTOs! exhibit! on! average! significant! investment! in! IP! protection! (
246.1! K! per! KTO).! The! corresponding! average! IPR! expenditure! for! Italian! and! Spanish!
KTOs!is!respectively!equal!to! 57.9!K!and! 47.6!K!per!KTO.!
By!considering!just!the!non\zero$values!in!the!sample,!on!average!each!
European! KTO! invested! 291.2! K! in! IP! protection! in! 2011.! If! we!
Each$European$KTO$
invested$on$average$
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
291.2$
protection$in$2011$$
6
!Including!external!legal!fees!paid!for!patent!applications,!maintenance!and!prosecution!during!
(non\zero$values)$
the!year!(not!including!litigation!costs,!if!any).!
!
48"
7.!Licensing!
observe! the! evidence! of! single! countries,! the! average! IPR! expenditure! for! UK! KTOs! in!
2011! was! 562.6! K! per! KTO.! Lower! but! still! significant! investment! has! been! made! by!
Danish! KTOs! ( 475.3! K).! Regarding! Italian! and! Spanish! KTOs! in! 2011! their! average!
amount!of!IPR!expenditure!is!respectively!equal!to! 62.3!K!and! 55.9!K.!!
49"
!
Table$6.8$ $IPR$expenditure$by$country$(2011)$
Country$
Total!expenditure!
Top!5!KTOs!!
(%!on!total!expenditure)!
Average!expenditure!per!KTO!
Average!expenditure!per!KTO!!
(non1zero!values)!
Number#of#KTOs#
All$countries$ Denmark7$
!
!
!
!
(32.4%)!
(82.7%)!
!
!
!
Italy$
Spain$
!
!
(43.7%)!
!
!
!
(41.2%)!
!
278#
14#
44#
UK$
61#
!
!
(40.3%)!
!
!
160#
!
+16.8%$increase$of$
IPR$expenditure$for$
UK$KTOs$in$the$
2008\11$period$
Regarding!the!trends$observable$in$the$average$amount$of$IPR$expenditure$by$country$
(non\zero$ values)! in! the! 200812011! period! (figure! 6.4),! Spanish! KTOs! registered! a!
significant! increase! if! compared! with! data! referring! to! 2008! (+48.3%)! while! UK,! Italian!
and!Danish!KTOs!experienced!more!modest!still!positive!variations!(+16.8%,+13.9%!and!
+12.7%!respectively).!
Figure$6.4$\$
\zero$values)$
+12.7%!
IPR$expenditure$(K$Euros)
600
500
+16,8%!
565.6
565.5
514.2
475.3
421.8
400
484.1
467.9
397.2
+13,9%!
300
+48,3%!
200
54.7
62.3
54.1 53.7
55.9
37.7
45.3
36.1
Denmark
Italy
Spain
2008
2009
2010
100
0
UK
2011
$
!
Disclosing$
performances$
Considering! some! performance$ indicators$ for$ IP$ management! (table! 6.9),! in! 2011! the!
responding!KTOs!registered!a!total!number!of!6,337!invention$disclosures!
top#
! respondents! accounting! for! 19.6%! of! them),! the! average! number! being! 22.4!
inventions!per!KTO!(31.7!disclosures!when!considering!just!non1zero!values).!During!the!
year,!8.7!inventions!were!disclosed!per!thousand!of!R&D!staff!whereas!the!number!of!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
7
!Danish!values!are!higher!because!they!include!institution!costs!for!evaluation!of!inventions,!IP!
protection,!commercialisation!and!use!of!consultants!in!connection!with!KT!activities.!
50"
7.!Licensing!
invention! disclosures! per! KTO! staff! (FTEs)! was! equal! to! 2! inventions.! In! 2011,! a! total!
number! of! 3.4! inventions! per! 10! M! of! R&D! expenditure! were! disclosed,! the!
corresponding! indicator! per!
3.7! inventions.! Finally,! the!
number!of!inventions!disclosed!per!100!K!patent!fees!was!12.1.!
The! total! number! of! priority$ patent$ applications$ filed! by! respondents! in! FY! 2011! was!
3,358!
!KTOs!accounting!for!25.2%!of!the!total),!the!average!number!being!
11.8! (17! priority! patent! applications! by! considering! just! non1zero! values).! During! the!
year,! 4.6! priority! patent! applications! were! filed! per! thousand! R&D! staff,! whereas! the!
annual!number!of!priority!filings!per!KTO!staff!(FTEs)!was!one!application.!In!FY!2011,!1.8!
priority!patent!applications!were!filed!per! 10!M!of!R&D!expenditure.!Moreover,!a!total!
number!of!2!applications!were!filed!per! 100!K!of!KTO !budget,!whereas!the!number!of!
priority!patent!applications!filed!per! 100!K!of!patent!fees!was!equal!to!6.5!applications.!
Patent$filing$
performances$
The!total!number!of!active$patents$held$in$portfolio$by!the!respondents!as!of!December!
31st!2011!was!equal!to!22,945!
!KTOs!accounting!for!32.5%),!the!
average! portfolio! being! equal! to! 81.9! patents! per! KTO! (116.5! active! patents! by!
considering! just! non1zero! values).! The! number! of! active! patents! per! thousand! of! R&D!
staff! was! equal! to! 33.8! whereas! the!number!of! patents! held!in! portfolio! per! KTO!staff!
(FTEs)!at!the!end!of!FY!2010!was!6.4.!The!number!of!active!patents!held!in!portfolio!per!
10!M!of!R&D!expenditure!was!12.9.!The!active!patents!per! 100!K!of!KTO!budget!were!
14!whereas!the!patents!in!portfolio!per! 100!K!of!patent!fees!were!44.1.!
Management$of$
patent$portfolio$
performances$
Table$6.9$ $Some$performance$indicators$about$IP$management8$
Average$
Top$5$
Average$$ (non\
Variables$
(%$on$
per$KTO$ zero$
total)$
values)$
Invention!
1,242!
6,337!
22.4!
31.7!
disclosures!
(19.6%)!
n#
283#
5#
283#
200#
Priority!
845!
patent!
3,358!
11.8!
17.0!
(25.2%)!
applications!
n#
285#
5#
285#
198#
Patent!
7,450!
22,945!
81.9!
116.5!
portfolio!
(32.5%)!
n#
280#
5#
280#
197#
All$$
KTOs$
Per$ Per$
K$
KTO$
R&D$ staff$
staff$ (FTE)$
8.7!
110#
4.6!
112#
33.8!
107#
2.0!
124#
1.0!
126#
6.4!
121#
Per$$
Per$$
Per$$
10$M$ 100$K$ 100$K$
R&D$
patent$
exp.$ budget$ fees$
3.4!
105#
1.8!
107#
12.9!
102#
3.7!
101#
2.0!
102#
14.0!
98#
12.1!
273#
6.5!
274#
44.1!
271#
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
8
!It!is!worth!pointing!out!that!for!each!performance!indicator!which!has!been!calculated!in!this!
table!the!sample!size!and!composition!varies!significantly.!In!particular,!for!those!indicators!which!
are!calculated!as!ratios!(namely!average!value!per!K!R&D!staff;!average!value!per!KTO!staff!(FTE);!
value!per!
have!been!included!in!the!sample.!
51"
!
A!schematic!representation!about!the!IP!management!by!responding!KTOs!in!FY!2010!is!
reported!in!box!3.!!
Box$3$ $IP$management$in$2011$at$a$glance9$
$
Invention$disclosures:$$
!
$
!
!
!
!
!
!
6,337!disclosures!in!total!(n=283)!
(with!top!5!KTOs!accounting!for!19.6%)$
22.4!disclosures!per!KTO!(whole!sample)!
31.7!disclosures!per!KTO!(non1zero!values)!
8.7!disclosures!per!K!R&D!staff!(FTEs)!
2!disclosures!per!KTO!staff!(FTEs)!
3.4!
!
3.7!
!
12.15!d
!
!Priority$patent$applications:!!!!!!!!!!!!!3,358!applications!in!total$(n=285)!
!
(with!top!5!KTOs!accounting!for!25.2%)$
$
11.8!applications!per!KTO!(whole!sample)!
!
17!applications!per!KTO!(non1zero!values)!
!
4.6!applications!per!K!R&D!staff!(FTEs)!
!
1!application!per!KTO!staff!(FTEs)!
!
1.8!
!
2!
!
!
6.5!
!
Active$patent$portfolio:$
!
!
!
$
!
!
!
!
22,945!active!patents!in!total!(n=280)!
(with!top!5!KTOs!accounting!for!32.5%)!
81.9!active!patents!per!KTO!(whole!sample)!
116.5!active!patents!per!KTO!(non1zero!values)$$
33.8!active!patents!per!K!R&D!staff!(FTEs)!
6.4!active!patents!per!KTO!staff!(FTEs)!
12.9!
iture!
14!
!
44.1!
$
IPR$expenditure:$
!
$
!
51!M!in!total!(n=278)!
183.3!K!per!KTO!(whole!sample)!
291.2!K!per!KTO!(non1zero!values)!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
9
!See!note!8.!
52"
7.!Licensing!
7.$Licensing$
!
Beyond! the! number! of! invention! disclosures! and/or! patents! granted,! what! really!
matters!about!KT!activities!by!PROs!is!their!capacity!to!transfer!inventions!to!the!realm!
of! industrial! applications.! From! this! point! of! view,! the! number! of! licences/options$
executed!in!a!certain!year!represents!a!useful!indicator.!!
As! observable! in! table! 7.1,! in! 2011! about! 58%! of! KTOs! executed! at! least! one!
licence/option,!and!this!can!be!considered!a!good!result!in!a!sample!including!one!fifth!
of!KTOs!which!are!relatively!new!and!therefore!relatively!inexperienced.!In!particular,!26!
KTOs!(representing! 9%!of!the!total)!executed!more!than!50! licences/options;!20.9%!of!
them! executed! 6! to! 50! licences/options,! and! 28.7%! executed! 1! to! 5! licences/options.!
Totally,! the! 286! respondents! executed! 5,477! licences/options! for! an! average! of! 19.2!
licences/options! per! KTO,! exhibiting! a! progressive! increase! over! the! period! surveyed!
(+71.4%!if!compared!with!FY!2006!and!+20%!if!compared!with!FY!2010).!
Table$7.1$\$Annual$number$of$licences/options$executed$$
Number$of$
licences/options$
executed$
0!
112!
315!
6110!
11120!
21150!
511100!
>100!
Total#number#of#
KTOs#
2006$
2008$
2010$
Each$European$KTO$
executed$on$average$
19.2$licensing$
agreements$in$FY$
$
progressive$and$
dramatic$increase$over$
the$period$surveyed$
2011$
n$
127!
59!
29!
27!
14!
13!
7!
8!
%$
44.7!
20.8!
10.2!
9.5!
4.9!
4.6!
2.5!
2.8!
n$
165!
20!
32!
22!
21!
15!
6!
8!
%$
57.1!
6.9!
11.1!
7.6!
7.3!
5.2!
2.1!
2.8!
n$
117!
50!
33!
20!
24!
12!
6!
9!
%$
43.2!
18.5!
12.2!
7.4!
8.9!
4.4!
2.2!
3.3!
N$
118!
48!
34!
25!
21!
14!
13!
13!
%$
41.3!
16.8!
11.9!
8.7!
7.3!
4.9!
4.5!
4.5!
284#
100.0!
289#
100.0!
271#
100.0!
286#
100.0!
Total#number#of#
licences/options#
3,174#
3,574#
4,326#
5,477#
Average#number#
of#
licences/options#
11.2#
12.4#
16.0#
19.2#
!
If!we!look!at!the!number!of!licences/options$executed$in$FY$2011,$analyzed$by$country$
(table!7.2),!we!notice!that!UK!KTOs!show!the!highest!average!values!(31.7!agreements!
per! KTO).! Danish! PROs! show! the! second! highest! average! value! (7.6! agreements! per!
KTO),! albeit! very! distant! from! UK! performances.! On! average,! Irish! KTOs! executed! 4.2!
licences/options!in!FY!2011,!whereas!Spanish!and!Italian!PROs!respectively!concluded!on!
average!3.7! and!1.3!licences/options! per!respondent.!By! considering!just!the! non\zero$
!
53"
UK$KTOs$are$top$
licensing$contractors$
(31.7$agreements$$
per$KTO)$
!
Each$European$KTO$
executed$on$average$
32.6$licences/options$in$
FY$2011$(non\zero$
values)$
values!in!the!sample,!on!average!each!European!KTO!executed!32.6!licences/options!in!
2011.! If! we! observe! the! evidence! of! single! countries,! the! average! number! of!
licences/options!concluded!by!UK!KTOs!in!2011!is!57!agreements!per!KTO.!A!lower!but!
still! significant! number! of! licences/options! has! been! executed! in! the! year! by! Danish!
KTOs!(11.9!contracts).!Regarding!Spanish!and!Italian!KTOs,!in!2011!their!average!number!
of!licences/options!is!respectively!equal!to!5.1!and!2.6!agreements.!!
Table$7.2$\$Licences/options$executed$by$country$(2011)$
Country$
All$countries$
Total!number!of!
5,477!
licences/options!
Top!5!KTOs!!
2,296!
(%!on!total!licences)!
(41.9%)!
Average!number!of!
licences/options!
19.2!
per!KTO!
Average!number!of!
licences/options!
32.6!
per!KTO!(non1zero!
values)!
Number#of#KTOs#
286#
Denmark$ Ireland$
Italy$
Spain$
UK$
66!
230!
5,074!
107!
109!
95!
(88.8%)!
n.a.!
7.6!
4.2!
1.3!
3.7!
31.7!
11.9!
n.a.!
2.6!
5.1!
57.0!
14#
26#
49#
63#
160#
33!
81!
2,296!
(50.0%)! (35.2%)! (45.3%)!
!
+70%$increase$of$
licences/options$
yearly$executed$for$
2008\11$period$
Regarding!the!trends$observable$in$the$number$of$licences/options$yearly$executed$by$
country$(non\zero$values)!in!the!200812011!period!(figure!7.1),!Spanish!KTOs!registered!
a! significant! increase! if! compared! with! data! referring! to! 2008! (+70%),! while! UK! and!
Danish!KTOs!experienced!a!more!modest,!but!still!consistent!growth!trend!(+45.4%!and!
+32.2%!respectively).!The!performances!of!Italian!KTOs!decreased!(143.5%!over!the!last!
three! years! surveyed.! For! Irish! KTOs,! the! number! of! licenses/options! was! decreased!!
(111%)!in!the!200912010!period.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
$
$
54"
7.!Licensing!
$
Figure$7.1$\$Trend$of$average$number$of$licences/options$executed$by$country$$
(non$zero$values)$
Number$of$licences/options$executed
+45.4%!
70
58.4
57
52.4
60
50
40
39.2
+32.2%!
30
20
10
111.0%!
143.5%!
11.9
11.4
4.6
9 9.2
+70.0%!
3 2.7 2.6
10 8.9
5.4
4.8 5.1
0
Denmark
2008
Italy
Spain
2009
UK
2010
Ireland
2011
#
!
The! amount$ of$ licensing$ revenues! is! certainly! a! relevant! indicator! to! consider! when!
assessing! the! efficiency! and! the! impact! of! KTOs! (table! 7.3).! With! regard! to! 2011,! the!
total! amount! of! licensing! revenues! for! the! 270! respondents! (35.6%! of! which! had! no!
revenues!at!all)!is!about! 90!M,!the!average!value!being! 332.2!K!per!KTO!(+24.2%!if!
compared!with!2006!and!+18.6%!if!compared!with!2010).!!
The!annual!average!revenues!exhibit!an!ambivalent!trend!in!the!whole!period!surveyed!
(200612011),! varying! between! 200! K! and! 300! K.! In! particular,! a! decrease! can! be!
observed!in!the!period!200612007!(120.3%),!after!which!an!incremental!trend!has!been!
registered!in!the!period!200812011!(+34.9%).!
In! 2011! the! licensing! revenues! are! higher! than! 100! K! for! 26.7%! of! the! responding!
KTOs,!with!6.7%!of!the!respondents!whose!revenues!are!higher!than!
.!
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
!
55"
Each$European$KTO$
registered$average$
licensing$revenues$for$
$
incremental$trend$
(+34.9%)$in$the$period$
2008\11$
!
$
Table$7.3$\$Annual$amount$of$licensing$revenues$
Licensing$
revenues$
$
2006$
0!
>01
!
>101
!
>301
!
>601
!
2008$
2010$
2011$
n$
119!
32!
23!
5!
23!
%$
43.4!
11.7!
8.4!
1.8!
8.4!
n$
114!
34!
25!
16!
17!
%$
40.0!
11.9!
8.8!
5.6!
6.0!
n$
93!
30!
27!
19!
9!
%$
39.2!
12.7!
11.4!
8.0!
3.8!
n$
96!
38!
27!
20!
17!
%$
35.6!
14.1!
10.0!
7.4!
6.3!
>1001
22!
8.0!
22!
7.7!
15!
6.3!
18!
6.7!
>2001
21!
7.7!
23!
8.1!
20!
8.4!
19!
7.0!
13!
4.7!
18!
6.3!
13!
5.5!
17!
6.3!
12!
4.4!
13!
4.6!
8!
3.4!
13!
4.8!
4!
1.5!
3!
1.1!
3!
1.3!
5!
1.9!
274#
100.0!
285#
100.0!
237#
100.0!
270#
100.0!
>5001
>1,0001
!
>5,000!
Total#number#
of#KTOs#
Total#
revenues#
Average#
revenues#
2#K#
#
From! the! analysis! of! the! licensing$ revenues$ registered$ by$ KTOs$ in$ 2011$ by$ country!
(table! 7.4),! the! above! considerations! about! different! national! approaches! to! the!
valorisation! of! the! results! from! public! research! as! well! as! about! different! levels! of!
ripening! of! a! proper! exploitation! culture! among! European! KTOs! appears! to! be!
strengthened.!!
Danish$KTOs$show$$
the$highest$average$
amount$licensing$
revenues$in$2011:$$
$
licensing$revenues$$
$
In! fact,! on! the! one! side,! Danish! KTOs! got! the! highest! average! results:! they! registered!
average! revenues! of! 647.1! K! per! KTO! ( 905.9! K! by! including! in! the! sample! just! the!
non1zero!values).!In!2011!Danish! t
!universities!obtained!licensing!revenues!whose!
value!is!equal!to!about! 8.7!M!(with!an!incidence!of!95.6%!on!the!total!volume!referred!
to! the! whole! sample! of! Danish! KTOs,! n=14),! the! average! amount! of! revenues! being!
about! 8.7!M!per!KTO.!!
UK!KTOs!also!exhibited!rather!high!economic!returns,!the!average!amount!of!revenues!
being!about! 482.7!K!per!KTO!( 728.6!K!per!KTOs!by!including!in!the!sample!only!the!
non1zero!values).!In!this!case,!
!universities!account!for!a!significant!share!(49%)!of!
the!total!revenues!referred!to!the!whole!sample!of!UK!KTOs!(n=160),!even!if!lower!than!
the! corresponding! incidence! observed! for! the! Danish! case.! In! particular,! the! total!
!
56"
7.!Licensing!
! universities! in! 2011! is! 37.9! M,! the! average!
value!being! 7.6!M!per!KTO.!
Spanish!KTOs!registered!lower!amounts!of!revenues,!the!average!value!being! 42.9!K!(
61.1!K!per!KTO!by!including!in!the!sample!just!the!non1zero!values).!In!this!case,!the!
!universities!1!totalling! 1.3!M!of!licensing!revenues!in!FY!2011!1!account!for!55%!of!
the! total! revenues! referred! to! the! whole! sample! of! Spanish! KTOs! (n=57),! the! average!
revenues!being! 268,6!K.!
In! 2011! Italian! KTOs! registered! licensing! revenues! whose! average! value! is! ! equal! to!
31.4!K!per!KTO!( 67.9!K!per!KTOs!by!including!in!the!sample!just!the!non1zero!values),!
with! the!
! universities! accounting! for! 87.4%! of! the! total! volume! referred! to! the!
whole!sample!of!Italian!KTOs!(n=39)!and!exhibiting!average!licensing!revenues!equal!to!
213.6!K!per!KTO!in!2011.!
Regarding!the!bulk!of!European!KTOs!responding!to!the!ProTon!Europe!survey!referring!
to! 2011,! the! average! amount!of! licensing!revenues! in! 2011! by! including!in! the! sample!
just! the! non1zero! values! is! equal! to! 517! K! p
! universities!
registered! licensing! revenues! for! 39.2! M! (with! an! incidence! of! 43.5%! on! the! total!
amount!of!the!royalties!obtained!by!the!whole!sample,!n=270),!the!average!value!being!!
7.8!M!per!KTO.!
$
$
for$Italian$KTOs$
Each$European$KTO$
registered$average$
licensing$revenues$
2011$(non\zero$
values)!
Table$7.4$ $Licensing$revenues$by$country$(2011)$
Country$
Total!revenues!
Top!5!KTOs!!
(%!on!total!
revenues)!
Average!revenues!
per!KTO!
Average!revenues!
per!KTO!!
(non1zero!values)!
Number#of#KTOs#
All$countries$
!
!
(43.5%)!
270#
Denmark$
!
Italy$
Spain$
UK$
!
(95.6%)!
!
(87.4%)!
!
(55.0%)!
!
(49.0%)!
14#
39#
57#
160#
!
Regarding! the! trends$ observable$ in$ the$ amount$ of$ the$ annual$ licensing$ revenues$ by$
country$(non\zero$values)!in! the!200812011!period! (figure!7.2),! UK! KTOs!registered!an!
increase!if!compared!with!data!referring!to!2008!(+17.6%),!while!Danish,!Italian,!Spanish!
KTOs!experienced!a!decrease!(137.8%,!122%,!13.3%!respectively).!!
!
!
!
!
$
$
!
57"
+17.6%$increase$of$
licensing$revenues$
for$UK$KTOs$in$the$
2008\11$period$
!
Figure$7.2$\$Trend$of$average$licensing$revenues$
$by$country$(non$zero$values)$
137.8%!
Licensing$revenues$(K$Euros)
$
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1,647.1
1,591.6
1,456
+17.6%!
905.9
122.0%!
Denmark
2008
13.3%!
90.9
87.1 80.867.9
74.6
63.9
63.2
61.1
Italy
Spain
2009
2010
728.6
659
619.3 599.4
UK
2011
!
Licensing$
contracting$
performances$
By! considering! some! performance$ indicators$ about$ licensing$ activities! carried! out! by!
responding!KTOs!in!2011!(table!7.5),!it!emerges!that!during!the!year!a!total!number!of!
5,477! licenc
! KTOs!
accounting!for!41.9%!of!the!total),!the!average!number!being!19.2!agreements!per!KTO!
(32.6!agreements!by!considering!just!non1zero!values).!!
In!particular,!in!2011,!1.5!licences/options!were!concluded!per!thousand!R&D!staff!and!
0.4! agreements! were! executed! per! KTO! staff! (FTEs).! By! considering! the! financial!
resources! devoted! to! research! and! KT! activities,! it! emerges! that! the! number! of!
licences/options! executed! per! 10! M! R&D! expenditure! was! equal! to! 0.6! agreements.!
Again,!0.6!agreements!were!executed!per!
10.7!contracts!were!
concluded!per! 100!K!patent!fees.!
Licensing$revenues$
performances$
Finally,!a!total!licensing!income!of! 90!M!(with!the!
!KTOs!accounting!for!43.5%!of!
the! total)! was! registered! by! the! respondents! in! FY! 2011,! the! average! amount! being!
332.2! K! per! KTO! ( 517! K! by! considering! just! non1zero! values).! In! particular,! licensing!
revenues! amounted! to! 20.1! K! per! thousand! R&D! staff! and! to! 12.7! K! per! KTO! staff!
(FTEs).!By!considering!financial!resources,!in!FY!2011!licensing!income!came!to! 7.1!per!
10!M!of!R&D!expenditure;! 8.7!K!per! 100!K!KTO!budget!and! 176.6!K!per! 100!K!
patent!fees.!
58"
7.!Licensing!
Table$7.5$ $Some$performance$indicators$about$licensing$in$201110$
Variables$
Licences/!
options!
executed!
n#
Top$5$
Average$ Per$K$
Average$$
(%$on$
(non\zero$ R&D$
per$KTO$
total)$
values)$ staff$
All$$
KTOs$
2,296!
(41.9%)!
5,477!
Licensing!
revenues!
n#
286#
19.2!
5#
32.6!
286#
M!
(43.5%)!
270#
5#
168#
!
270#
1.5!
!
174#
Per$
KTO$
staff$
(FTE)$
0.4!
110#
123#
K!
K!
95#
Per$$
Per$$
Per$$
10$M$ 100$K$ 100$K$
R&D$
patent$
exp.$ budget$ fees$
0.6!
108#
0.6!
10.7!
104#
100#
91#
86#
274#
!
257#
!
A! schematic! representation! about! licensing! activities! by! responding! KTOs! in! 2011! is!
reported!in!box!4.!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Box$4$ $Licensing$in$2011$at$a$glance11!
Licences/options$executed:$
!
$
!
!
!
!
!
!
5,477!contracts$in!total!(n=286)!
19.2!contracts!per!KTO!(whole!sample)!
32.6!contracts!per!KTO!(non1zero!values)$$
1.5!contracts!per!K!R&D!staff!(FTEs)!
0.4!contracts!per!KTO!staff!(FTEs)!!
0.6!contracts!per! 10!M!R&D!expenditure!
0.6!contracts!per!
!
10.7!contracts!per! 100!K!patent!fees!
Annual$licensing$revenues:$
!
$
!
!
!
!
!
!
90!M!in!total!(n=270)!
332.2!K!per!KTO!(whole!sample)!
517!K!per!KTO!(non1zero!values)$$
20.1!K!per!K!R&D!staff!(FTEs)!
12.7!K!per!KTO!staff!(FTEs)!!
7.1!K!per! !10!M!R&D!expenditure!
8.7!K!per!
!
176.6!K!per! !100!K!patent!fees
Source:#ProTon!Europe!Survey,!FY!2011#
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10
! average!
11
!See!note!10.!
59"
8.$Spin\off$companies$
!
Each$European$KTO$
created$on$average$
1.9$new$spin\offs$in$FY$
2011;$more$or$less$the$
same$as$in$previous$
years$
Another!activity!traditionally!performed!by!KTOs!is!the!support!for!the!creation!of!spin1
off! companies.! In! this! respect,! table! 8.1! reports! the! number$ of$ spin\off$ companies$
created$ per$ year,! showing! that! the! annual! average! number! of! newly! established!
companies! keeps! quite! stable! over! the! period! surveyed,! varying! between! 1.6! and! 1.9!
new!firms!per!KTO.!In!particular,!the!total!number!of!spin1off!companies!started!in!2011!
with! the! support! of! the! 288! responding! KTOs! is! 549,! the! average! number! being! 1.9!
companies!per!KTO.!
By! looking! at! the! distribution! of! the! responding! KTOs,! we! can! observe! that! in! 2011,!
51.7%!of!the!respondents!did!not!generate!any!companies,!36.1%!of!them!created!1!to!4!
companies.! A! further! 8.4%! of! respondents! started! 5! to! 10! companies,! whereas! the!
residual! 2.4%! of! the! respondents! generated! 11! to! 20! companies.! In! the! sample,! 0.3%!
PRO!registered!more!than!20!cases!of!creation!of!new!ventures!in!2011.!
Table$8.1\$Number$of$spin\off$companies$created$per$year$
Number$of$
spin\offs$
0!
1!
2!
3!
4!
516!
7110!
11120!
>20!
Number#
KTOs#
2006$
2008$
2010$
2011$
n$
149!
56!
20!
19!
18!
17!
9!
4!
1!
%$
50.9!
19.1!
6.8!
6.5!
6.1!
5.8!
3.1!
1.4!
0.3!
n$
139!
59!
30!
20!
12!
13!
15!
5!
0!
%$
47.4!
20.1!
10.2!
6.8!
4.1!
4.4!
5.1!
1.7!
0.0!
N$
74!
31!
23!
13!
11!
6!
9!
3!
0!
%$
43.5!
18.2!
13.5!
7.6!
6.5!
3.5!
5.3!
1.8!
0.0!
n$
149!
46!
33!
16!
12!
12!
12!
7!
1!
%$
51.7!
16.0!
11.5!
5.6!
4.2!
4.2!
4.2!
2.4!
0.3!
293#
100.0!
293#
100.0!
170#
100.0!
288#
100.0!
Total#
number#of#
spinNoffs#
473#
480#
579#
549#
Average#
number#of#
spinNoffs#
1.6#
1.6#
1.9#
1.9#
$
Italian$KTOs$show$the$
highest$average$number$
of$new$spin\offs$(3.2)$
created$in$FY$2011$
If!we!look!at!the!number!of!spin\off$companies$created$in$2011$by$country!(table!8.2),!
Italian! KTOs! show! the! highest! average! number! of! newly! created! spin1off! companies!
(3.2).!Spain,!UK!and!Ireland!also!exhibit!a!relevant!spinning1off!rate!for!each!KTO!in!2011!
(the! average! number! being! respectively! equal! to! 1.8,! 1.7! and! 1.2! new! companies! per!
KTO).!The!corresponding!average!number!for!Danish!KTOs!is!equal!to!0.6!new!spin1offs!
per!KTO.!!
60"
8.!Spin1off!companies!
By! considering! just! the! non\zero$ values! in! the! sample,! in! 2011! each! European! KTO!
generated!on!average!3.9!new!spin1off!companies.!If!we!observe!the!evidence!of!single!
countries,! Italy! and! UK! KTOs! registered! on! average! respectively! 5.5! and! 4.2! new! firms!
per!KTO.!Lower!but!still!significant!average!results!have!been!registered!by!Spanish!and!
Danish!KTOs,!which!in!2011!created!respectively!2.8!and!1.3!new!companies.!
Each$European$KTO$
created$on$average$3.9$
new$spin\offs$in$FY$
2011,$(non\zero$values)$
!
Table$8.2$ $Spin\offs$created$by$country$(2011)$
Country$
Total!spin1offs!
Top!5!KTOs!
(%!on!total!spin1offs)!
Average!spin1offs!per!KTO!
(non1zero!values)!
Number#of#KTOs#
All$
Denmark$ Ireland$
countries$
549!
8!
31!
Italy$
Spain$
UK$
164!
111!
266!
151!
(27.5%)!
7!
(87.5%)!
n.a.!
110!
43!
77!
(67.1%)! (38.7%)! (28.9%)!
1.9!
0.6!
1.2!
3.2!
1.8!
1.7!
3.9!
1.3!
n.a.!
5.5!
2.8!
4.2!
288#
14#
26#
51#
63#
160#
!
Considering!the!110!KTOs!which!provided!this!kind!of!information!(table!8.3),!the!total$
number$of$active$spin\offs$as!of!December!31st!2011!is!1,218,!the!average!number!being!
11.1! companies! per! KTO! (+35.4%! if! compared! with! 2006! and! 15.9%! if! compared! with!
2010).!More!precisely,!10.9%!of!respondents!did!not!exhibit!any!active!spin1off!company!
at! the! end! of! 2011! and! 27.1%! of! them! counted! 1! to! 5! companies.! 38.1%! of! the!
respondents!registered!6!to!15!companies!and!20.2%!of!them!presented!more!than!16!
companies,!with!1!KTOs!(accounting!for!0.9%!of!the!total!number!of!respondents)!from!
which!over!60!spin1off!companies!have!gemmated!up!to!the!end!of!2011.!
Table$8.3$\$Annual$number$of$active$spin\off$companies$as$of$December$31st$
Number$of$
active$spin\offs$
2008$
0!
112!
315!
6110!
11115!
16125!
26160!
>60!
n$
62!
39!
21!
31!
16!
14!
14!
3!
%$
31.0!
19.5!
10.5!
15.5!
8.0!
7.0!
7.0!
1.5!
Number#of#KTOs#
200#
100.0! 280# 100.0!
Total#number#of#spinNoffs#
Average#number#of#spinNoffs#
2006$
1,642#
8.2#
%$
31.8!
12.1!
10.7!
16.8!
6.4!
11.8!
8.9!
1.4!
2,553#
9.1#
#
n$
89!
34!
30!
47!
18!
33!
25!
4!
61"
2010$
N$
25!
14!
25!
23!
19!
10!
21!
2!
%$
18.0!
10.1!
18.0!
16.5!
13.7!
7.2!
15.1!
1.4!
2011$
n$
12!
12!
19!
23!
20!
13!
10!
1!
%$
10.9!
10.9!
17.3!
20.9!
18.2!
11.8!
9.1!
0.9!
139# 100.0! 110# 100.0!

3,271#
11.8#
1,218#
11.1#
active$spin\off$at$the$
end$of$FY$2011$is$11.1$
active$spin\
!
progressive$increase$
over$the$period$
surveyed$
!
!
Italian$KTOs$show$the$
highest$average$number$
of$active$spin\offs$(12.4)$
at$the$end$of$2011$
active$spin\off$at$the$
end$of$FY$2011$is$12.4$
active$spin\offs$$
(non\zero$values)$
If! we! look! at! the! number! of! active$ spin\off$ companies$ as$ of$ December$ 31st$ 2011$ by$
country! (table! 8.4),! Italian! KTOs! show! the! highest! average! number! of! active! spin1off!
companies!(12.4).!Spain!exhibit!a!relevant!active!spin1off!portfolio!for!each!KTO!in!2011!
(9.9!companies).!!
By! considering! just! the! non\zero$ values! in! the! sample,! the! average! number! of! active!
spin1off!companies!per!European!KTO!as!of!December!31st!2011!is!equal!to!12.4!firms.!If!
we! observe! the! evidence! of! single! countries,! Italian! and! Spanish! KTOs! registered! on!
average!12.4!active!firms!per!KTO.!!
$
Table$8.4$ $Active$spin\off$companies$as$of$December$31st$2011$(2011)$
Country$
Total!spin1offs!
Top!5!KTOs!
(%!on!total!spin1offs)!
Average!spin1offs!per!KTO!(non1
zero!values)!
Number#of#KTOs#
All$countries$
Italy$
Spain12$
1,218!
634!
584!
246!
(20.2%)!
189!
(29.8%)!
203!
(34.8%)!
11.1!
12.4!
9.9!
12.4!
12.4!
12.4!
110#
51#
59#
!
When! we! consider! some! performance$ indicators$ about! spin1off! companies! in! 2011!
(table! 8.5),! the! total! number! of! spin\off$ companies$ created$ during$ the$ year$ by! the!
responding!KTOs!was!549!firms!(with!the!
!KTOs!accounting!for!27.5%!of!the!total,!
and!therefore!much!less!than!the!case!of!patenting!and!licensing),!the!average!number!
of!spin1offs!created!was!1.9!firms!per!KTO!(3.9!by!including!in!the!sample!just!the!non1
zero!values).!In!2011,!the!respondents!generated!on!average!1.3!spin1offs!per!thousand!
of! R&D! staff! and! 0.3! spin1offs! per! KTO! staff! (FTEs),! whereas! if! we! take! into! account!
financial!resources,!it!emerges!that!during!the!year!they!registered!the!creation!of! 0.5!
spin1off! companies! per! 10! M! of! R&D! expenditure,! 0.6! spin1offs! per! 100! K! of! KTO!
budget!and!1!spin1offs!per! 100!K!of!patent!fees.!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
12
! Spanish! values! refer! to! spin1off! companies! created! in!the! last! five! years! and! still! active! as! of!
December!31st!2011.!
62"
8.!Spin1off!companies!
!
The! total! number! of! active$ spin\offs$ as$ of$ December$ 31st$ 2011! generated! by! the!
responding!KTOs!was!on!the!whole!equal!to!1,218,!20.2%!of!which!were!generated!by!
the!
! KTOs.! The! average! active! spin1
was! 11.1! firms! per! KTO! (12.4!
companies!by!including!in!the!sample!just!the!non1zero!values).!At!the!end!of!the!year,!
the!respondents!registered!6.2!active!spin1offs!per!thousand!of!R&D!staff;!1.2!firms!per!
KTO!staff!(FTEs),!2.4!companies!per! 10!M!of!R&D!expenditure,!2.5!firms!per! 100!K!of!
KTO!budget!and!22!companies!per! 100!K!of!patent!fees.!
Table$8.5$ $Performance$indicators$about$spin\off$companies$in$201113$
Variables$
All$$
KTOs$
Top$5$
Average$ Per$K$
Average$$
(%$on$
(non\zero$ R&D$
per$KTO$
total)$
values)$ staff$
Spin1offs!
151!
549!
created!
(27.5%)!
n#
288#
5#
Active!
246!
1,218!
spin1offs!
(20.2%)!
n#
110#
5#
1.9!
3.9!
288#
11.1!
1.3!
136#
12.4!
110#
111#
6.2!
98#
108#
Per$
Per$$
Per$$
Per$$
KTO$
100$K$ 100$K$
10$M$
staff$
patent$
R&D$exp.$
(FTE)$
budget$ fees$
0.3!
125#
1.2!
108#
0.5!
106#
2.4!
103#
0.6!
101#
2.5!
97#
1.0!
265#
22.0!
99#
!
A! schematic! representation! about! spin1off! activities! by! responding! KTOs! in! 2011! is!
reported!in!box!5.!!
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
13
a
63"
Active$spin\off$
management$
performances$
!
Box$5$\ $Spin\off$companies$in$2011$at$a$glance14$
$
Number$of$spin\offs$created:$
!
$
!
!
!
!
!
!
549!new!spin1offs!in!total!(n=288)!
1.9!new!spin1offs!per!KTO!(whole!sample)!
3.9!new!spin1offs!per!KTO!(non1zero!values)$!
1.3!new!spin1offs!per!K!R&D!staff!(FTEs)!
0.3!new!spin1offs!per!KTO!staff!(FTEs)!!
0.5!new!spin1offs!per! 10!M!R&D!expenditure!
0.6!new!spin1offs!per!
!
1!new!spin1offs!per! 100!K!patent!fees!
Number$of$active$spin\offs:$
!
$
!
!
!
!
!
!
1,218!active!spin1offs!in!total!(n=110)!
11.1!active!spin1offs!per!KTO!(whole!sample)!
12.4!active!spin1offs!per!KTO!(non1zero!values)$!
6.2!active!spin1offs!per!K!R&D!staff!(FTEs)!
1.2!active!spin1offs!per!KTO!staff!(FTEs)!!
2.4!active!spin1offs!per! 10!M!R&D!expenditure!
2.5!active!spin1offs!per! 100!K!
!
22!active!spin1offs!per! 100!K!patent!fees!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
14
!See!note!13.!
64"
Appendix:$ProTon$Europe$Annual$Survey$Questionnaire$$
$
Survey$of$Knowledge$Transfer$
activities$in$Europe$(FY$2011)$
$
Section$0:$General$
Do! you! agree! that! the! information! you! will! provide! on! your! institution! can! be! made! public! by!
ProTon!Europe?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !Yes!
!!!! !!No!
Part$1:$CORE$QUESTIONS$$
Recommended!by!the!European!Commission's!Expert!Group!!
on!Knowledge!Transfer!Metrics.!
A.$Background$variables$
A1:$The$institutions$served$by$the$KTO!!
A1.1.!Does!the!KTO!serve!more!than!1!institution?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !Yes!
A1.2.!If!yes,!how!many?!
!!!!!! !!No!
...............................!
!
A2:$Types$of$institutions$served$by$the$KTO!
Number#of#PROs#served#by#your#KTO#on#a#permanent#and#privileged#base:!
A2.1.!University!or!other!higher!education!institution!
.................................!
A2.2.!Hospital!(linked!to!a!university!or!independent)!
.................................!
A2.3.!Fully!or!predominantly!governmental!research!institution!
.................................!
A2.4.!Fully!or!predominantly!private!non1profit!research!institution!
.................................$
A2.5.!Other!
.................................!
65"
!
A3:$KTO$age$
E1.1!Year!of!foundation!of!your!KTO!
$
............................!
A4:$KTO$size$
A4.1!Total!number!of!KTO!staff!in!full1time!equivalents!(FTEs)!
!..........................FTEs!
[Include#all#professional,#administrative#and#support#staff#for#knowledge#transfer#activities]#
A4.2!Number!of!professional!staff!(FTEs)!
..........................FTEs!
!
A5:$Total$KTO$costs$
!
..........................%!
!
A6:$Reference$year$
Does#the#KTO#report#for#a#calendar#year#(January#1st#to#December#31st),#a#fiscal#year#(ending#what#
date),#or#an#academic#year,#in#this#survey?#
A6.1.!Calendar!year!(January!1st!2011!to!December!31st!2011)!!
A6.2!A!fiscal!year!ending!on!..........................!!
A6.3!An!academic!year!201112012!
!Yes!
!Yes!
!Yes!
!No!
!No!
!No!
$
B.$Denominators$(for$calculating$standardised$indicators)$
#
B1:$Research$expenditures$in$the$reference$year$
B1.1!Total!expenditures!on!all!types!of!basic!and!applied!research!(science!and!humanities)!!
in!the!affiliated!institution(s)!from!all!funding!sources:!all!levels!of!government,!industry,!!
non1profit!foundations,!etc.!!
!
[Include#share#of#academic#costs#dedicated#to#research,#costs#of#administrative#support#and#
capital#expenditures#on#new#equipment.#Exclude#cost#of#new#buildings#or#land]#
B1.2!What!percentage!of!research!expenditures!!were!for!science!research?!............................%!
[Include#all#research#expenditures#for#biology,#physics,#chemistry,#engineering,#mathematics#and#
computing#sciences]#
!
B2:$Research$personnel$in$the$reference$year$$
............................FTEs$
[Average# number# of# research# personnel# in# the# reference# year# in# Full# Times# Equivalents# (FTEs).#
Include# time# spent# by# academic# staff# on# research,# other# researchers# (postNdocs,# PhD# students,#
researchers#on#fellowships,#part#and#full#time#researchers),#technicians#and#administrative#support#
personnel.#Exclude#time#spent#by#academic#staff#on#teaching]#
66"
Appendix!
C.$Performance$indicators$$
C1.1$Number$of$research$agreements$
................................$
[All# contracts# where# a# firm# funds# the# PRO# to# perform# research# on# behalf# of# the# firm,# with# the#
results# usually# provided# to# the# firm.# Include# collaborative# agreements# where# both# partners#
provide# funding# and# share# the# results.# Exclude# cases# where# the# firm# funds# a# research# chair# or#
other#research#of#no#expected#commercial#value#to#the#firm.#Also#exclude#consultancy#contracts]#
C1.2.!Number!of!collaborative!research!agreements:!!
.................................!
[Agreements#where#both#the#firm#and#the#PRO#participate#in#the#design#of#the#research#project,#
contribute#to#its#implementation#and#share#the#project#outputs]!
!
C1.3.!Number!of!contract!research!agreements:!!
[Agreements#where#all#research#is#performed#by#the#PRO]!
.................................!
!
C1.4.!Number!of!consultancy!agreements:!!
..................................!
[Agreements#where#the#PRO#provides#expert#advice#without#performing#new#research]# #
C1.5!Share!of!total!research!expenditures!funded!by!the!private!sector! ...............................%!
C1.6!Financial!value!of!all!research!agreements:!
.......................,
!
[Include#every#type#of#research#agreement#(collaboration,#contract)#or#of#consultancy#contracts]#
!
C2$Number$of$invention$disclosures$received$during$the$year$$
....................................$
[Descriptions#of#inventions#or#discoveries#that#are#evaluated#by#the#KTO#staff#or#other#technology#
experts#to#assess#their#commercial#application]#
"
!
C3.1$Total$number$of$priority$patent$applications!!
...................................$
[New#priority#patent#applications.#Exclude#double#counting,#such#as#a#patent#application#for#the#
same#invention#in#more#than#one#patent#jurisdiction.#If#questions#about#EPO#or#USPTO#patents#are#
asked,# it# is# important# to# clarify# that# EPO# or# USPTO# applications# may# or# may# not# be# priority#
applications.# NonNpriority# EPO# or# USPTO# applications# may# be# technically# equivalent# to# priority#
patent#applications#submitted#in#other#jurisdictions#in#the#same#year#or#earlier]#
C3.2!Number!of!new!patent!applications!filed!to!the!EPO!
...................................!
C3.3!Number!of!new!patent!applications!to!the!USPTO!
...................................!
!
C4.1.$Total$number$of$new$patent$grants$
...................................$
[Technically#unique#patents#granted.#Count#a#patent#grant#for#the#same#invention#in#two#or#more#
countries#as#one#technically#unique#patent.#If#a#technically#unique#patent#grant#has#been#counted#
in#a#previous#year,#it#cannot#be#counted#again]#
C4.2!Number!of!new!patent!grants!from!the!EPO!
...................................!
C4.3!Number!of!new!patent!grants!from!the!USPTO!
...................................!
!
C5.$Total$number$of$licences$executed!!
...................................!
[Include# all# licences,# options# and# assignments# (LOAs)# for# all# types# of# IP# (copyright,# knowNhow,#
patents,#trademarks,#etc.).#Count#multiple#(identical)#licences#with#a#value#each#of#less#than#500#
Euros#as#one#licence.#A#licence#grants#the#right#to#use#IP#in#a#defined#field#of#use#or#territory.#An#
option#grants#the#potential#licensee#a#time#period#to#evaluate#the#technology#and#negotiate#the#
terms#of#a#licence.#An#assignment#transfers#all#or#part#of#the#right#to#IP#to#the#licensee]#
!
C6.$Total$licence$income$earned$
.........................,
!
[Total#income#from# all#types#of# knowNhow#and# IP# (patents,# copyright,# designs,# material# transfer#
agreements,# confidentiality# agreements,# plant# breeder# rights,# etc.)# before# disbursement# to# the#
inventor# or# other# parties.# Include# license# issue# fees,# annual# fees,# option# fees# and# milestone,#
termination# and# cashNin# payments.# Exclude# license# income# forwarded# to# other# institutions# than#
those#served#by#the#KTO#or#to#companies]#
67"
!
C7.$Number$of$spin\offs$established$during$the$year$
...................................$
[A#new#company#expressly#established#to#develop#or#exploit#IP#or#knowNhow#created#by#the#PRO#
and# with# a# formal# contractual# relationship# for# this# IP# or# knowNhow,# such# as# a# license# or# equity#
agreement.# Include,# but# do# not# limit# to,# spinNoffs# established# b
startNups# that# do# not# sign# a# formal# agreement# for# developing# IP# or# knowNhow# created# by# the#
institution]#
D.$Success$stories$
In!the!next!survey!report,!"boxes"!about!success!stories!will!be!introduced.!You!are!therefore!
invited!to!write!in!the!box!below!one!or!more!success/original!"cases"!(each!one!no!more!than!
150!words!long)!about!the!organization!and!staffing!of!the!KTO,!or!about!inventions,!patents,!
licences,!spin1offs!or!other!related!topics.!
PART$2$:$OPTIONAL$QUESTIONS$
The!following!questions!are!non1obligatory,!but!they!are!important!
for!the!stakeholders!involved!in!the!Knowledge!Transfer!process!at!
European!level.!
$
!
E1
$
Does#your#KTO#undertake#the#following#activities?#Please,#check#all#that#apply.#
E1.1!Seeking!and/or!managing!research!contracts!from!government!organizations!
!Yes! !No!
E1.2!Seeking!and/or!managing!research!contracts!with!industry!
!Yes! !No!
E1.3!Selling!expertise/consultancy/services!to!industry!
!Yes! !No!
E1.4!Managing!the!patent!portfolio!
!Yes! !No!!
E1.5!Scouting!for!new!IP/technology!
!Yes! !No!!
E1.6!Licensing!
!Yes! !No!!
E1.7!Creation!of!spin1off!companies!
!Yes! !No!
E1.8!Continuous!Professional!Development!(CPD)!!
!Yes! !No!
E1.9!Management!of!Science!and!Technology!Parks!
!Yes! !No!
E1.10!Agreements!with!seed!capital!funds!or!business!angel!networks!
!Yes! !No!
!
!
E2.$Incubators$and$Science$Parks$
Number#of#PROs#served#by#your#KTO#with:#
E2.1!Business!incubator!
E2.2!Science!&!Technology!Park!
!
E3.$Legal$relationship$with$the$PRO(s)$served$
Which#is#the#legal#relationship#between#your#KTO#and#the#PRO(s)#served?#Please#check#all#that#
apply.#
E3.1!Department/unit!of!the!PRO(s)!
!Yes! !No!
E3.2!Non!for1profit!entity,!whose!majority!is!controlled!by!the!PRO(s)!
!Yes! !No!!
E3.3!For1profit!entity,!whose!majority!is!controlled!by!the!PRO(s)!
!Yes! !No!!
E3.4!Non!for1profit!entity,!bound!by!a!written!and!preferential!services!agreement!
!Yes! !No!!
E3.5!For1profit!entity,!bound!by!a!written!and!preferential!services!agreement!
!Yes! !No!!
68"
Appendix!
!
E4.$Financial$sources$of$total$R&D$expenditure$in$the$reference$year$
Percentage#of#the#total#R&D#expenditure#in#the#reference#year#covered#by#the#following#financial#
sources:#
E4.1!Industry!
E4.2!Government!offices!and!agencies!
E4.3!Donations!
E4
!
!
!
Total!amount!of!the!R&D!expenditure!in!the!reference!year!
!
E5
$
Percentage#of#the#K
11111111111111111111111111111!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!100%!
E5
E5.2!Self1financing!from!research!agreements!(revenues!from!research!and!
consultancy!contracts,!collaborative!research,!technical!services)!
!
E5.3!Self1financing!from!patenting/know1how!(revenues!from!licensing!
activities,!patent!assignments,!participation!to!spin1
!
!
!
ce!year!
!
11111111111111111111111111111!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!100%!
!
F.$Supplementary$performance$indicators$
!
F1.$Financial$value$of$research$agreements$$
$
[Financial#value#of#all#contracts#where#a#firm#funds#the#PRO#to#perform#research#on#behalf#of#the#
firm,#with#the#results#usually#provided#to#the#firm.#Include#collaborative#agreements#where#both#
partners# provide# funding# and# share# the# results.# Exclude# cases# where# the# firm# funds# a# research#
chair# or# other# research# of# no# expected# commercial# value# to# the# firm.# Also# exclude# consultancy#
contracts]#
F1.2!Financial!value!of!collaborative!research!agreements:!!
..........................,0
!
[Agreements#where#both#the#firm#and#the#PRO#participate#in#the#design#of#the#research#project,#
contribute#to#its#implementation#and#share#the#project#outputs]#
#
F1.3!Financial!value!of!contract!research!agreements:!!
[Agreements#where#all#research#is#performed#by#the#PRO]#
!
#
F1.4!Financial!value!of!consultancy!agreements:!!
[Agreements#where#the#PRO#provides#expert#advice#without#performing#new#research]# #
!
F2.$Priority$patent$applications!
F2.1!Number!of!priority!patent!applications!filed!to!the!national!patent!office!
F2.2!Number!of!priority!patent!applications!jointly!owned!with!one!or!more!third!parties!
!
$
F3.1$Total$number$of$patent$applications$(PCT$I)$
F3.2!Number!patent!applications!(PCT!I)!filed!to!the!national!patent!office!
F3.3!Number!of!patent!applications!(PCT!I)!filed!to!the!EPO!
F3.4!Number!of!patent!applications!(PCT!I)!filed!to!the!USPTO!
!
$
69"
!
F4.1$Total$number$of$patent$extensions$(normally$PCT$II,$but$not$exclusively)$
F4.2!Number!of!patent!extensions!filed!to!the!EPO!
F4.3!Number!of!patent!extensions!filed!to!the!USPTO!
F4.4!Number!of!patent!extensions!filed!to!other!patent!offices!
!
F5.1$Total$number$of$patent$grants$
!
[Differently#from#the#new#patent#grants#(technically#unique#patent#grants),#this#number#includes#
all#the#grants#obtained#in#the#reference#year,#even#if#they#are#related#to#the#same#invention#and#
also# even# if# the# corresponding# technically# unique# patent# grant# has# been# counted# in# a# previous#
year]#
F5.2!Number!of!patents!granted!by!the!national!patent!office!
F5.3!Number!of!patents!granted!by!the!EPO!
F5.4!Number!patents!granted!by!the!USPTO!
!
F6.1$Total$number$of$active$patents$at$the$end$of$the$reference$year$
............................$
[Include# both# active# patent# applications# filed# and# active# patents# granted# as# of# the# end# of# the#
reference# year# (number# of# active# patent# portfolio,# excluding# the# cases# of# sold,# reNassigned# or#
expired#patents)]#
F6.2!National!patent!office:!number!of!active!national!patents!!
(priority!patent!applications!+!PCT!I!applications!+!grants)!!
F6.3!EPO:!number!of!active!patents!
(priority!patent!applications!+!PCT!I!applications!+!PCT!II!applications!+!grants)!
F6.4!USPTO:!number!of!active!patents!
(priority!patent!applications!+!PCT!I!applications!+!PCT!II!applications!+!grants)!
F6.5!Number!of!national!validations!!
(post!PCT!II!procedure)!
!
F7.$Total$amount$of$patent$fees$paid$in$the$reference$year$
[Including#the#external#legal#fees#paid#for#patent#applications,#maintenance#and#prosecution#
during#the#reference#year#(not#including#litigation#costs,#if#any)]#
!
70"
Appendix!
F8.$Licensing$activities$in$the$reference$year!
F8.1!Number!of!exclusive!licences,!options!and!assignments!executed!in!the!year!!!
F8.2!Number!of!licences,!options!and!assignments!executed!with!non1EU!partners!in!the!year
!
!
F9.$Spin\off$companies!
[New#companies#expressly#established#to#develop#or#exploit#IP#or#knowNhow#created#by#the#PRO#
and# with# a# formal# contractual# relationship# for# this# IP# or# knowNhow,# such# as# a# license# or# equity#
agreement.# Include,# but# do# not# limit# to,# spinN
startNups# that# do# not# sign# a# formal# agreement# for# developing# IP# or# knowNhow# created# by# the#
institution]#
F9.1!Number!of!active!spin1off!companies!at!the!end!of!the!reference!year!
..............!
F9.2!Number!of!active!spin1off!companies!with!a!formal!licence!agreement!with!the!PRO!..............!
F9.3!Number!of!active!spin1off!companies!with!a!formal!equity!agreement!with!the!PRO! ..............!
F9.4! Revenues! generated! in! the! reference! year! from! profits! and/or! sales! of! equity! in!!
spin1offs!in!which!your!PRO/KTO!holds!equity!
!
F9.5!Active!spin1
he!reference!year!
F9.6!Average!number!of!employees!in!active!spin1off!companies!in!the!reference!year!
.......FTEs!
F9.7!Number!of!spin1off!companies!which!have!closed!down!in!the!reference!year!
..............!
!
F10.$Total$number$of$other$start\up$companies$
...................................!
[Other# new# companies# involving# people# (staff# or# students)# from# the# PRO(s).# Exclude# spinNoff#
companies,# with# a# formal# knowledge# transfer# agreement,# for# developing# IP# or# knowNhow#
developed#by#the#parent#PRO(s)]#
!
71"
!
Glossary$
$
Active$ patent$ portfolio:$ including! both! active! patent! applications! filed! and! active!
patents!granted!as!of!the!end!of!the!reference!year!(number!of!active!patent!portfolio,!
excluding!the!cases!of!sold,!re1assigned!or!expired!patents).!
Assignment:$agreement!granting!the!right!to!use!IP!in!a!defined!field!of!use!or!territory.!
Collaborative$ research$ agreements:! agreements! where! both! the! firm! and! the! PRO!
participate!in! the!design!of! the!research! project,! contribute! to! its! implementation! and!
share!the!project!outputs.!!
Consultancy$agreements:$agreements!where!the!PRO!provides!expert!advice!without!
performing!new!research.!
Contract$research$agreements:!agreements!where!all!research!is!performed!by!the!PRO.!
Equity:!financial!term!for!the!difference!betwee
is,!the!value!that!accrues!to!the!owners.!
Extension:!a!PCT!application!or!a!patent!application!in!another!country!than!that!where!
priority!patent!has!been!filed.!
External$ clients:! approximate! number! of! external! partners! (both! private! and! public,!
both! national! and! foreign! partners)! actually! served! by! the! KTO! for! the! KTO! activities!
managed!during!the!reference!year!(in!particular!regarding!contracted!and!collaborative!
R&D,!consultancy!and!technical!services!in!the!reference!year).!
FTE$(Full$Time$Equivalents):!People!working!part1time!are!only!included!for!the!fraction!
that!they!are!employed.!
Internal$clients:!approximate!number!of!academic!and!research!PRO!personnel!actually!
served!by!the!KTO!for!the!KTO!activities!managed!during!the!reference!year.!
Invention$ disclosures:! descriptions! of! inventions! or! discoveries! that! are! evaluated! by!
the!KTO!staff!or!other!technology!experts!to!assess!their!commercial!application.!
IPR$(Intellectual$Property$Rights):!patents,!registered!designs,!software,!etc.!
KTO$(Knowledge$Transfer$Organization):$outside!organization!or!department!unit!(not!
physical!persons)!involved!in!the!transfer!of!knowledge!from!PROs,!that!are!entrusted!by!
one!or!several!PROs!with!a!substantial!activity!in!the!transfer!of!knowledge!from!those!
PROs,! including! intellectual! property! management,! licensing,! partnering! with! industry!
and!the!creation!of!new!companies.!
!total!expenditures!of!the!KTO!on!technology!transfer!activities,!including!
outsourcing! costs,! patent! portfolio! management! costs,! contract! costs,! etc.! Financial!
sources! include:! (i)!
(including! personnel! and! ordinary!
expenses);!(ii)!selfNfinancing#from#contracted#and#collaborative#research#(revenues!from!
research!and!consultancy!contracts,!collaborative!research,!technical!services);!(iii)!selfN
financing# from# patenting/knowNhow! (revenues! from! licensing! activities,! patent!
assignments,!participation!to!spin1
!
$ number! of! full1time! equivalent! (FTE)! staff! involved! in! the! KT! activities!
carried!out!by!the!KTO.!Include!all!professional,!administrative!and!support!staff!for!KT!
activities.!
!
72"
Appendix!
Licence$ income$ earned:! total! income! from! all! types! of! know1how! and! IP! (patents,!
copyright,! designs,! material! transfer! agreements,! confidentiality! agreements,! plant!
breeder! rights,! etc.)! before! disbursement! to! the! inventor! or! other! parties.! Include!
license! issue! fees,! annual! fees,! option! fees! and! milestone,! termination! and! cash1in!
payments.!Licence!income!forwarded!to!other!institutions!than!those!served!by!the!KTO!
or!to!companies!is!excluded.!
Licence:$agreement!granting!the!right!to!use!IP!in!a!defined!field!of!use!or!territory.!
New$ patent$ grants:! technically! unique! patents! granted.! A! patent! grant! for! the! same!
invention!in!two!or!more!countries!must!be!counted!as!one!technically!unique!patent.!If!
a! technically! unique! patent! grant! has! been! counted! in! a! previous! year,! it! cannot! be!
counted!again.!
Option:$agreement!transferring!all!or!part!of!the!right!to!IP!to!the!licensee.!
Other$ start\up$ companies$ (not$ included$ among$ spin\off$ companies):! other! new!
companies! involving! people! (staff! or! students)! from! the! PRO(s).! Spin1off! companies,!
with!a!formal!knowledge!transfer!agreement,!for!developing!IP!or!know1how!developed!
by!the!parent!PRO(s)!are!excluded.!
Patent$fees:$amount!of!IPR!expenditure!including!the!external!legal!fees!paid!for!patent!
applications,!maintenance!and!prosecution!during!the!reference!year!(not!including!
litigation!costs,!if!any).!
Patent$grants:$differently!from!the!new!patent!grants!(technically!unique!patent!grants),!
this! number! includes! all! the! grants! obtained! in! the! reference! year,! even! if! they! are!
related! to! the! same! invention! and! also! even! if! the! corresponding! technically! unique!
patent!grant!has!been!counted!in!a!previous!year.!
PCT$(Patent$Cooperation$Treaty):!the!Treaty!makes!it!possible!to!seek!patent!protection!
for! an! invention! simultaneously! in! each! of! a! large! number! of! countries! by! filling! an!
!
PCT$ I$ (Chapter$ I):! the! chapter! of! the! PCT! regulating! the! filing! of! the! international!
application,! international! search,! establishment! of! the! written! opinion! of! the!
International! Searching! Authority,! international! publication! of! the! international!
application,! and! provides! for! the! communication! of! the! international! application! and!
related!documents!to!designated!Offices.!
PCT$ II$ (Chapter$ II):! the! chapter! of! the! PCT! regulating! the! optional! international!
preliminary! examination! procedure,! and! provides! for! the! communication! of! the!
international!preliminary!examination!report!and!certain!related!documents!to!elected!
Offices.!
Priority$ filing$ of$ a$ patent$ application:$ the! first! filing! under! the! form! of! a! provisional,!
national! patent! application,! regional! (EP! of! other)! or! international! (PCT)! patent!
application!from!which!priority!date!all!national!patents!will!derive.!
Priority$ patent$ applications:$ new! priority! patent! applications,! excluding! double!
counting,!such!as!a!patent!applications!for!the!same!invention!in!more!than!one!patent!
jurisdiction.!If!questions!about!EPO!or!USPTO!patents!are!asked,!it!is!important!to!clarify!
that! EPO! or! USPTO! applications! may! or! may! not! be! priority! applications.! Non1priority!
EPO!or!USPTO!applications!may!be!technically!equivalent!to!priority!patent!applications!
submitted!in!other!jurisdictions!in!the!same!year!or!earlier.!
PRO$ (Public$ Research$ Organizations):$ universities! and! other! research! institutions!
funded!primarily!by!public!funds.!
!
73"
!
! professional! position! whose! duties! include! any! management!
task! (liaison,! marketing,! negotiation,! evaluation,! administration,! legal! and! business!
administrative!staff.!
Reference$ year:$ twelve1month! period! about! which! the! KTO! is! reporting.! It! can! be! a!
calendar!year!(January!1st!to!December!31st),!a!fiscal!year!(ending!on!a!different!date),!or!
an!academic!year.!
Research$agreements:$all!contracts!where!a!firm!funds!the!PRO!to!perform!research!on!
behalf! of! the! firm,! with! the! results! usually! provided! to! the! firm.! Include! collaborative!
agreements!where!both!partners!provide!funding!and!share!the!results.!Cases!where!the!
firm! funds! a! research! chair! or! other! research! of! no! expected! commercial! value! to! the!
firm!are!excluded.!Consultancy!contracts!are!also!excluded.!
Research$and$Development$expenditures:$total!R&D!expenditures,!on!all!types!of!basic!
and! applied! research! (science! and! humanities)! in! the! affiliated! institution(s)! from! all!
funding! sources:! all! levels! of! government,! industry,! non1profit! foundations,! etc.! The!
amount!includes!share!of!academic!costs!dedicated!to!research,!costs!of!administrative!
support! and! capital!expenditures! on! new! equipment.! Exclude! cost! of! new! buildings! or!
land.!
Research$personnel:!average!number!of!research!personnel!in!the!reference!year!in!Full!
Times! Equivalents! (FTEs).! Include! time! spent! by! academic! staff! on! research,! other!
researchers! (post1docs,! PhD! students,! researchers! on! fellowships,! part! and! full! time!
researchers),! technicians! and! administrative! support! personnel.! Exclude! time! spent! by!
academic!staff!on!teaching.!
Revenue:!it!is!the!amount!of!money!that!the!PRO!receives!from!its!KT!activities.!
Seed$capital:!money!that!is!given!to!someone!to!help!start!a!new!business.!
Spin\off:! a! new! company! expressly! established! to! develop! or! exploit! IP! or! know1how!
created!by!the!PRO!and!with!a!formal!contractual!relationship!for!this!IP!or!know1how,!
such!as!a!license!or!equity!agreement.!Include,!but!do!not!limit!to,!spin1offs!established!
1ups!that!do!not!sign!a!formal!agreement!for!developing!IP!
or!know1how!created!by!the!institution!are!excluded.!
Technical$services:!the!sale!of!services!for!a!fee.!These!may!include!the!use!of!special!
infrastructure,!performance!of!tests$$
!
74"

Piccaluga, OTT. Proton 2011 Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Piccaluga, OTT. Proton 2011 Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

!

Italy$ Spain$ Denmark$ Ireland$

1,091.5h! 1,059.3i! 2,203.2k!

5.1 5.2 4.8

4.0 3.5 3.5 3.8

40# 100.0! 107# 100.0!

10.5 11.5 11.7

Table! 6.5! presents! the! number! of!

By! considering! just!the! non\zero$values! in! the!sample,! on! average! each!

All$countries$ Denmark$ Italy$

1,107! 1,616! 7,450!

100.0! 280# 100.0!

139# 100.0! 110# 100.0!

You might also like