Motivação para o desenvolvimento de patentes em universidades do Estado de Pernambuco

Oliveira, Jabson Herber Profiro de; Lima, João Policarpo Rodrigues; Sena Junior, Manoel Raimundo; Fernandes, Ana Cristina de Almeida

Jabson Herber Profiro de Oliveira

Universidade Federal de Pernambuco – UFPE, Departamento de Ciências Farmacêuticas, Programa de Pós-graduação em Inovação Terapêutica, Recife, PE, Brasil. E-mail: jabson_f16@yahoo.com.br

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0356-8083

João Policarpo Rodrigues Lima

Universidade Federal de Pernambuco – UFPE, Departamento de Economia, Programa de Pós-graduação em Economia, Recife, PE, Brasil. E-mail: jprlima@ufpe.br

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1485-0025

Manoel Raimundo Sena Junior

Universidade Federal de Pernambuco – UFPE, Departamento de Estatística, Programa de Pós-graduação em Estatística, Recife, PE, Brasil. E-mail: manoel@de.ufpe.br

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6535-5556

Ana Cristina de Almeida Fernandes

Universidade Federal de Pernambuco – UFPE, Centro de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas – CFCH, Departamento de Ciências Geográficas, Programa de Pós-graduação em Geografia, Recife, PE, Brasil. E-mail: anacf@ufpe.br

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2641-5525

POPULATION, SAMPLE AND RESPONDED QUESTIONNAIRES
	Population (%)	Responded questionnaires (%)	Detailed response rate (%)
UFPE Patent Inventors	79.23% (164)	80.43% (74)	45.12%
UFRPE Patent Inventors	20.77% (43)	19.57% (18)	41.86%

CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SAMPLE
	Patent inventors
Researchers who are or have already been a CNPq Research Productivity Fellow	47.8%(44)
Level of CNPq Fellows	25.0%(23) - 2
	10.9%(10) - 1D
	4.3%(4) - 1A
Has already been the first-listed inventor of a patent	56.5%(52)
Researchers who already filed patent applications abroad	18.5%(17)
Researchers who filed up to 2 patent applications (Göktepe & Mahagaonkar, 2008Göktepe, D., & Mahagaonkar, P. (2008). What do scientists want: money or fame? (Jena Economic Research Papers, No. 032). Jena: University Jena.)	64.1%(59)
Researchers who filed at least 3 patent applications (Göktepe & Mahagaonkar, 2008Göktepe, D., & Mahagaonkar, P. (2008). What do scientists want: money or fame? (Jena Economic Research Papers, No. 032). Jena: University Jena.)	35.9%(33)
Researchers who developed projects with foreign researchers	62%(57)
Researchers who have already attempted to develop research activities in partnership with private institutions	67.4%(62)
Researchers who have already developed projects in partnership with private institutions	47.8%(44)

INVENTOR PROFILE BY FIELD OF SCIENCE
	Total	Up to 2 patent applications	At least 3 patent applications	First listed inventor	Has already attempted partnerships	Has already developed partnerships
Agricultural Sciences	7.6%(7)	8.5%(5)	6.1%(2)	9.6%(5)	6.4%(4)	4.5%(2)
Biological Sciences	17.4%(16)	15.2%(9)	21.2%(7)	13.5%(7)	14.5%(9)	13.6%(6)
Health Sciences	20.6%(19)	18.6%(11)	24.2%(8)	17.3%(9)	21.0%(13)	15.9%(7)
Exact and Earth Sciences	20.6%(19)	17.0%(10)	27.2%(9)	23.1%(12)	22.5%(14)	20.4%(9)
Applied Social Sciences	3.2%(3)	3.4%(2)	3.0%(1)	3.8%(2)	3.2%(2)	4.5%(2)
Engineering	30.4%(28)	37.2%(22)	18.1%(6)	32.7%(17)	32.2%(20)	40.9%(18)
Total	92	59	33	52	62	44

PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS BY SECTION
	Principal Components	Eigenvalues (λ)	Confidence Interval ^{^} Confidence intervals obtained by bootstrap resampling.
	Principal Components	Eigenvalues (λ)	Lower	Upper
Section 1	PC1	7.300	5.541	8.862
	PC2	1.941	1.141	2.188
	PC3	1.612	1.119	1.959
	PC4^* * In this component, the confidence interval obtained via bootstrap resampling includes a value below 1, but above 0.7. Jolliffe (1986) states that values above 0.7 are acceptable.	1.156	0.791	1.339
Section 2	PC1	6.201	4.899	7.360
	PC2	2.541	1.255	3.170
	PC3	1.538	1.009	1.725
	PC4*	1.265	0.953	1.446
	PC5*	1.068	0.868	1.266

Variables	Descriptive statistics	Principal Components and eigenvectors
Variables	Median	PC1	PC2	PC3	PC4
V71	6.0	0.121	0.047	0.776	0.010
V72	6.0	0.030	0.667	0.143	0.334
V73	5.5	0.044	0.727	0.190	0.249
V74	6.0	0.600	0.545	0.017	0.066
V75	6.0	0.327	0.822	0.169	0.060
V76	5.0	0.439	0.763	0.201	-0.022
V77	6.0	0.133	0.225	0.831	0.078
V78	6.0	0.036	0.319	0.815	0.158
V79	6.0	0.495	-0.013	0.651	0.174
V80	5.0	0.253	0.042	0.049	0.639
V81	5.5	0.711	0.106	0.183	0.317
V82	6.0	0.667	0.244	0.258	0.260
V83	6.0	0.807	0.255	-0.050	0.139
V84	6.0	0.851	0.095	0.147	0.137
V85	7.0	0.715	0.128	0.251	0.260
V87	5.0	0.125	0.143	0.255	0.769
% of explained variance	-	40.5%	10.7%	8.9%	6.4%
% of accumulated variance	-	40.5	51.2	60.1	66.5

	Factors that discourage the development of academic patents
PC1	V74 – Little incentive/support from the university
	V81 – Lack of experts in intellectual property rights in the ICT to elaborate contracts and resolve litigation cases
	V82 – “Pro-innovation and entrepreneurship” mindset still underdeveloped in the university
	V83 – Lack of advisory from experts in writing patent applications
	V84 – Lack of a team of experts in evaluating the potential, stage and valuation of the technology developed in the university
	V85 – Lack of a marketing team for the technological portfolio of the university
PC2	V72 – Little possibility of return/gains from patent applications compared to the publication of papers
	V73 – Little relevance for the progression of the researcher’s career in the university
	V75 – Little relevance given by the CAPES evaluation to patents
	V76 – Little relevance given by the CNPq evaluation to patents
PC3	V71 – Little familiarity with writing patent applications
	V77 – Limited market-oriented vision of the researcher
	V78 – Purely academic research vision among researchers
	V79 – Little knowledge of the researcher on patents as forms of protection and dissemination of the knowledge developed in the university
PC4	V80 – Preference for other TT modalities (for example, consultancy and advisory; informal information exchange; contracts of R&D projects; creation of academic spinoffs; research joint ventures)
PC4	V87 – Little interest among researchers in developing RD&I projects

	PC1			PC2			PC3			PC4
	Correlation	p-value		Correlation	p-value		Correlation	p-value		Correlation	p-value
v82	0.7682	<0.000	v78	0.6798	<0.000	v73	0.5263	<0.000	v87	0.6173	<0.000
v76	0.7463	<0.000	v77	0.6494	<0.000	v75	0.5030	<0.000	v80	0.4811	<0.000
v85	0.7379	<0.000	v71	0.6061	<0.000	v72	0.4915	<0.000	v88	0.3127	<0.001
v84	0.7231	<0.000	v79	0.2882	<0.001	v76	0.3994	<0.000	v86	0.3000	<0.001
v75	0.7205	<0.000	v88	-0.2090	<0.001	v71	-0.2556	<0.001	v83	-0.2055	<0.001
v81	0.7187	<0.000	v81	-0.2302	<0.001	v81	-0.2845	<0.001	v84	-0.2124	<0.001
v86	0.7071	<0.000	v74	-0.2591	<0.001	v85	-0.2857	<0.001	v74	-0.2462	<0.001
v74	0.7032	<0.000	v84	-0.3085	<0.001	v84	-0.3320	<0.001	v76	-0.3136	<0.001
v83	0.6953	<0.000	v83	-0.4458	<0.000	v79	-0.4332	<0.000
v79	0.6507	<0.000
v78	0.5736	<0.000
v77	0.5662	<0.000
v73	0.5660	<0.000
v87	0.5510	<0.000
v72	0.5406	<0.000
v80	0.4525	<0.000
v88	0.4472	<0.000
v71	0.4215	<0.000

Description of variables in the first section that had a moderate/strong correlation with the principal components
(Factors that discourage the development of academic patents)
v82	“Pro-innovation and entrepreneurship” mindset still underdeveloped in the university
v76	Little relevance given by the CNPq evaluation to patents
v85	Lack of a marketing team for the technological portfolio of the university
v84	Lack of a team of experts in evaluating the potential, stage and valuation of the technology developed in the university
v75	Little relevance given by the CAPES evaluation to patents
v81	Lack of experts in intellectual property rights in the TTO to elaborate contracts and resolve litigation cases
v86	Little openness of the university with regard to developing RD&I projects
v74	Little incentive/support from the university
v83	Lack of advisory from experts in writing patent applications
v79	Little knowledge of the researcher on patents as forms of protection and dissemination of the knowledge developed in the university
v78	Purely academic research vision among researchers
v77	Limited market-oriented vision of the researcher
v73	Little relevance for the progression of the researcher’s career in the university
v87	Little interest among researchers in developing RD&I projects
v72	Little possibility of return/gains from patent applications compared to the publication of papers
v71	Little familiarity with writing patent applications

Variables	Descriptive statistics	Principal componentes and eigenvectors
Variables	Median	PC1	PC2	PC3	PC4	PC5
V89	7.0	0.848	0.040	0.085	-0.135	-0.071
V90	6.0	0.827	0.222	0.101	-0.139	-0.020
V91	7.0	0.886	0.109	0.177	0.142	0.073
V92	7.0	0.889	0.080	0.175	0.176	0.106
V93	6.5	0.866	0.030	0.130	0.174	0.235
V94	6.0	0.045	-0.028	0.118	0.740	0.109
V95	6.0	-0.030	0.146	0.048	0.821	-0.019
V97	7.0	0.169	0.674	0.285	0.048	0.036
V98	6.0	0.000	0.746	-0.049	-0.086	0.313
V99	7.0	0.201	0.877	0.115	0.079	0.009
V100	6.0	0.012	0.708	0.295	0.298	-0.037
V101	4.5	0.018	0.072	0.208	-0.017	0.843
V103	7.0	0.250	0.311	0.721	0.374	0.022
V104	7.0	0.269	0.293	0.770	0.163	0.058
V105	7.0	0.058	0.006	0.849	-0.116	0.195
% of explained variance	-	36.4	14.9	9.0	7.4	6.2
% of accumulated variance	-	36.4	51.3	60.3	67.7	73.9

	Factors than can facilitate and encourage the practices of patent development and academic entrepreneurship in the university
PC1	V89 – Promotion, by the TTO, of incentives for researchers to develop projects together with companies
	V90 – Promotion, by the TTO, of incentives for researchers to develop research for the purpose of commercializing/licensing technologies with companies
	V91 – The existence of a specific team in the TTO with employees dedicated to the marketing of the set of technologies that the university has
	V92 – Support of a specific team in the TTO for the marketing of the portfolio and technological activities of the university
	V93 – Support of a team for negotiating activities in the TTO
PC2	V97 - Companies should look for universities to engage in partnerships. This can facilitate and encourage the practice
	V98 – Researchers in the university should look for companies to engage in partnerships
	V99 – There must be a constant university-industry interaction through research groups
	V100 – Increased interest from the researcher in filing patent applications together with companies
PC3	V103 – Incentive via development agencies through thematic calls
	V104 – Increased frequency of successful TT cases via patent licensing between university and industry
	V105 – Increased agility in the process of analysis and granting of patents by the INPI
PC4	V94 – Increased interest from the researcher in developing RD&I projects
PC4	V95 – Increase in the interest of the researcher in filing patent applications together with researchers from other universities
PC5	V101 – Companies located close to the university

	PC1			PC2			PC3			PC4			PC5
	Correlation	p-value		Correlation	p-value		Correlation	p-value		Correlation	p-value		Correlation	p-value
v102	0.8031	<0.000	v100	0.5302	<0.000	v94	0.5501	<0.000	v95	0.4759	<0.000	v101	0.7801	<0.000
v92	0.7824	<0.000	v95	0.3941	<0.000	v95	0.4637	<0.000	v94	0.3334	<0.001	v96	0.4783	<0.000
v91	0.7777	<0.000	v98	0.3515	<0.000	v103	0.2308	<0.001	v96	0.2534	<0.001	v98	0.2460	<0.001
v103	0.7671	<0.000	v99	0.3495	<0.000	v102	0.2268	<0.001	v99	0.2088	<0.001
v93	0.7458	<0.000	v103	0.3178	<0.001	v100	-0.2053	<0.001	v103	-0.2170	<0.001
v104	0.7407	<0.000	v97	0.3143	<0.001	v90	-0.2416	<0.001	v104	-0.3808	<0.000
v90	0.6554	<0.000	v102	0.2870	<0.001	v97	-0.3559	<0.000	v105	-0.7137	<0.000
v99	0.6143	<0.000	v94	0.2565	<0.001	v99	-0.5230	<0.000
v97	0.5779	<0.000	v104	0.2387	<0.001	v98	-0.5761	<0.000
v89	0.5701	<0.000	v91	-0.4867	<0.000
v100	0.5532	<0.000	v92	-0.4888	<0.000
v96	0.5200	<0.000	v93	-0.5001	<0.000
v105	0.4520	<0.000	v90	-0.5166	<0.000
v98	0.3504	<0.000	v89	-0.6297	<0.000
v94	0.3090	<0.001
v95	0.3049	<0.001
v101	0.2966	<0.001

Description of variables in the second section that had a moderate/strong correlation with the principal components (Factors than can facilitate and encourage the practices of patent development and academic entrepreneurship in the university)
v102	The dissemination of information for further clarification on the assistance of Brazilian development institutions (for example: FINEP; FACEPE; SENAI, BNDES)
v92	Support of a specific team in the TIC for the marketing of the portfolio and technological activities of the university
v91	The existence of a specific team in the TTO with employees dedicated to the marketing of the set of technologies that the university has
v103	Incentive via development agencies through thematic calls
v93	Support of a team for negotiating activities in the TTO
v104	Increased frequency of successful TT cases via patent licensing between university and industry
v90	Promotion, by the TTO, of incentives for researchers to develop research for the purpose of commercializing/licensing technologies with companies
v99	There must be a constant university-industry interaction through research groups
v97	Companies should look for universities to engage in partnerships.
v89	Promotion, by the TTO, of incentives for researchers to develop projects together with companies
v100	Increased interest from the researcher in filing patent applications together with companies
v96	Researchers from Brazilian universities should interact with researchers from foreign universities to increase the possibility of developing high-quality patents
V98	Researchers in the university should look for companies to engage in partnerships.
V94	Increased interest from the researcher in developing RD&I projects
V105	Increased agility in the process of analysis and granting of patents by the INPI
V101	Companies located close to the university

[1] The data set (n=92) of the sample represents around 45% of the target population.

Brasil

Brasil

Motivação para o desenvolvimento de patentes em universidades do Estado de Pernambuco

Resumo: