Narrow Results

This paper analyses four medical innovation processes originating from Stanford and Uppsala universities with the purpose of understanding how intellectual property rights (IPR) ownership and intellectual property (IP) nature influence the behaviour of academic inventors. We analyse this behaviour through the roles enacted and evaluate the requirements the roles pose by developing a method to assess the requirements of individual roles, which we label as role intensity. We find that both IPR ownership and IP nature can influence the academic inventors’ roles and role intensities. In contrast to assumptions in research and policy, we find that IPR ownership does not influence the roles and role intensities in a remarkable way. We also find support that research and policy should distinguish between patentable and non-patentable inventions in the field of medical invention as these two types of IP nature are associated with different roles and role intensities. These findings contribute to the literature on commercialisation of science and innovation management by demonstrating the importance of IP nature in influencing the roles of inventors. Managerial and policy implications are provided.