National innovative performance is a key driver for sustainable growth (Pavitt, 1980). National innovative capacity may be improved by fostering industrial Research and Development (R&D), by funding academic research and by effectively supporting university-industry interactions in order to strengthen the linkage between R&D and product development. In a context of growing relevance of external sources of innovation, where the industry, rather than relying on internal R&D, increasingly engages in ‘open innovation’ (Chesbrough, 2006), the role played by universities is crucial. The essays presented in this thesis focus mainly on academic R&D and knowledge transfer mechanisms from the university viewpoint, as opposed to government or industry perspectives. These essays contribute to our understanding of how universities organise themselves to adapt to this changing context. In other words, the thesis looks at the ‘reflexivity’ norm of the system associated with the entrepreneurial university, as established by Etzkowitz (2004); or “a continuing renovation of the internal structure of the university as its relation to industry and government changes, and of industry and government as their relationship to the university is revised”. Universities play a major role in the national innovative capacity of a country as producers and transmitters of new knowledge (see for instance, Adams, 1990; Mansfield, 1991; Klevorick et al., 1995; Zucker et al., 1998; Cohen et al., 2002; Arundel and Geuna, 2004; Guellec and van Pottelsberghe, 2004). While European countries play a leading global role in terms of scientific output, they lag behind in the ability to convert this strength into wealth-generating innovations (this is known as the ‘European paradox’, see for instance Tijssen and van Wijk, 1999; and Dosi et al., 2005). This level of innovation may be improved by different factors; for instance, by fostering an entrepreneurial culture, or by increasing industry’s willingness to develop new products, new processes. One of these factors relies on the notion of an ‘entrepreneurial university’. Universities, in addition to the two traditional missions of research and teaching, foster their third mission of contribution to society, by improving the transfer of knowledge to the industry. New tools and regulations have been established to support universities in this process. Since the early 80’s, academic technology transfer offices (TTOs) have been created, dedicated employees have been trained and hired, incubators for the launch of new academic ventures have been set up, academic or independent pre-seed investment funds have been founded and laws related to the ownerships by university of their invented-patents have been promulgated. But what exactly stands behind the notion of ‘entrepreneurial university’? There exist more different descriptions of a similar concept or of a similar evolution than a general agreed definition. Indeed, "(…) There is high heterogeneity, there is no such thing as a typical university, and there is no typical way to be or become an entrepreneurial university" (Martinelli et al., 2008, p.260). However some similar patterns of what is or should be an entrepreneurial university may be identified. First, there is this notion of a revolution experienced by universities that now have to integrate a third mission of contributing to economic development aside of their traditional academic missions. “(…) But in the most advanced segments of the worldwide university system, a ‘second revolution’ takes off. The entrepreneurial university integrates economic development into the university as an academic function along with teaching and research. It is this ‘capitalisation of knowledge’ that is the heart of a new mission for the university, linking universities to users of knowledge more tightly and establishing the university as an economic actor in its own right” (Etzkowitz, 1998, p.833). This revolution finds its origin in a necessary adaptation of universities to an external changing environment where modern societies put a strong emphasis on knowledge. “The concept of the entrepreneurial university envisions an academic structure and function that is revised through the alignment of economic development with research and teaching as academic missions. The transformation of academia from a ‘secondary’ to a ‘primary’ institution is a heretofore unexpected outcome of the institutional development of modern society (Mills, 1958). In consequence, the knowledge industry in modern societies is no longer a minor affair run by an intellectual elite, an activity that might be considered by pragmatic leaders as expendable; it is a mammoth enterprise on a par with heavy industry, and just as necessary to the country in which it is situated (Graham, 1998, p.129)”, quoted by Etzkowitz et al. (2000, p.329). The notion of an ‘entrepreneurial university’ also exceeds the simple idea of the protection of academic intellectual property by patents owned by universities and their out-licensing as well as the launch of new ventures. It encompasses an overall change of how the university is organised. “In the gruesome and heady world of changing external environments, organizations – including universities – will need to seek opportunities beyond their existing competences (Hamel and Prahalad, 1989, 1994), which suggests the need for an entrepreneurial orientation (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996)”, quoted by Glassman et al. (2003, p.356). This entrepreneurial orientation will only be possible if the overall organisation of the university changes. “An entrepreneurial university, on its own, actively seeks to innovate how it goes about its business. It seeks to work out a substantial shift in organizational character so as to arrive at a more promising posture for the future. Entrepreneurial universities seek to become 'stand-up' universities that are significant actors on their own terms” (Clark, 1998, p.4). The notion of entrepreneurial university also encompasses the concept of academic entrepreneurship in its broad sense. For a university to become entrepreneurial, individual academics also have to adapt and to behave in an entrepreneurial way. This concept is not solely conceived here as the launching of new ventures by academics (a view embraced by Shane, 2004, for instance). It relates more to the view of Stevenson, Roberts and Grousbeck (1989), referenced by Glassman et al. (2003, p.354) or “the process of creating and seizing an opportunity and pursuing it to create something of value regardless of current available resources.” The difficulty facing universities is then to adapt to their external environment while preserving the integrity of their two traditional academic missions. However, some conceive this challenge as precisely an ability that characterise the very intrinsic university’s nature. "The uniqueness of the university,(…) lies in its protean capacity to change its shape and function to suit its temporal and sociopolitical environment while retaining enough continuity to deserve its unchanging name” (Perkin, 1984, p.18). Furthermore, others perceive this challenge as a tension that has always been at the root of the university’s character. “The cherished view of some academics that higher education started out on the Acropolis of scholarship and was desecrated by descent into the Agora of materialistic pursuit led by ungodly commercial interests and scheming public officials and venal academic leaders is just not true for the university systems that have developed at least since 1200 A.D. If anything, higher education started in the Agora, the market place, at the bottom of the hill and ascended to the Acropolis on the top of the hill… Mostly it has lived in tension, at one and the same time at the bottom of the hill, at the top of the hill, and on many paths in between” (Kerr, 1988, p.4; quoted by Glassman, 2003, p.353). Nevertheless, it appears that some institutions, the ones integrating the best their different missions and being the most ‘complete’ in terms of the activities they perform, will be better positioned to overcome this second revolution than other institutions. “Since science-based innovations increasingly have a multidisciplinary character and build on "difficult-to-codify" people-centred interactions, university-based systems of industry science links, which combine basic and applied research with a broader education mission, are seen as enjoying a comparative advantage relative to research institutes” (OECD, 2001 quoted by Debackere and Veugeleers, 2005, p.324). Or as stated by Geuna (1998, p.266), in his analysis of the way the different historical trajectories of European universities are influencing their ability to adapt to the current changing environment, “ (…) the renowned institutions of Cluster IV (pre-war institutions, large in size, with high research output and productivity) are in a strong position both scientifically and politically, and can exercise bargaining power in their relations with government and industry. (…) On the other side, universities in the other two clusters (new postwar universities, characterised by small size, low research output and low research orientation and productivity, whether involved in technological research or in teaching), with very low research grants from government, are pushed to rely more heavily on industrial funding. Being in a weak financial position, they may find themselves in an asymmetric bargaining relationship with industry that they may be unable to manage effectively.” To summarize, one could attempt to define the broad notion of an ‘entrepreneurial university’ as follows. An entrepreneurial university is a university that adapts to the current changing environment that puts a stronger emphasis on knowledge, by properly integrating the third mission or the capitalisation of knowledge aside of its two traditional missions. This adaptation requires a radical change in the way the university is organised. It will require important strategic reorientation from the top but also, and mainly, it will require from the individual academics to better seize new opportunities to generate value (not only financial but also scientific or academic) given scarcer resources. Renowned and complete universities (with teaching, basic and applied research) have an edge over other institutions to overcome this second revolution. This notion of ‘entrepreneurial university’ has drawn criticisms. For example, academics’ interactions with industry could impact negatively on research activities by reorienting fundamental research towards more applied research projects (Cohen and Randazzese, 1996; David, 2000), by restricting academic freedom (Cohen et al., 1994; Blumenthal et al., 1996; Blumenthal et al., 1997), or by potentially reducing scientific productivity (see for instance van Zeebroeck et al., 2008 for a review on this issue). The present work does not address the issue of the impact of increased interactions with the business sector on traditional academic missions nor the question of whether universities should become entrepreneurial or not. Instead, the essays start from the idea that the ‘entrepreneurial university’ notion is part of the intrinsic nature of modern universities, or at least, is a part of its evolution. Industry-university relationships are not a new phenomenon; it can be traced at least to the mid- to late-1800s in Europe and to at least the industrial revolution in the USA (Hall et al., 2001). What is evolving is the nature of such relationships that become more formal. The present analysis starts then from the general observation that some universities (and researchers) are more entrepreneurially-oriented and better accept this mission than others. From that stems the primary research question addressed in this thesis: are there characteristics or conditions leading to a smooth coexistence of traditional and new academic missions inside an entrepreneurial university? And if so, what are they? Existing work on the entrepreneurial university is a nascent but already well developed field of research. The aimed contribution of this thesis is to analyse the topic under three specific but complementary angles. These three perspectives are explored into the four main chapters of this work, structured as follows. Chapter 1 is titled “Turning science into business: A case study of a traditional European research university”. It introduces the topic by investigating the dynamics at play that may explain the propensity of a traditional, research-oriented university to start generate entrepreneurial outputs, while being not full-fledge entrepreneurially organised. Exploring the importance of “new” entrepreneurial outputs, as defined as patents and spin-off companies, compared to other ways of transferring new knowledge to the industry, Chapter 2 reviews the literature on the variety of knowledge transfer mechanisms (KTMs) used in university-industry interactions. It is titled “University-Industry interactions and knowledge transfer mechanisms: a critical survey”. Given scarcer structural funds for academic research and increasing pressure on academics to diversify their activities in terms of being involved in patenting or spin-off launching, Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 investigate the role played by individual characteristics of researchers in attracting competitive, external funding. Chapter 3 presents stylised facts related to external fundraising at ULB and characteristics of researchers who attracted these funds over the period 1998-2008. The empirical analysis on associations between individual characteristics of researchers (intrinsic, scientific and entrepreneurial) and the extent of funds attracted from different sources (national, regional and business) is presented in Chapter 4, titled “The determinants of academic fundraising.” Chapter 5 concludes and suggests ideas for future investigation on this topic. Chapter 6, in appendix of the present work, titled “A note on the drivers of R&D intensity”, is not directly linked to the issue of the entrepreneurial university. It has been included to complement the studied topic and to put in perspective the present work. Academic research and university-industry interactions constitute important drivers of a national R&D and innovation system. Other factors are at play as well. Looking at this issue at the macroeconomic level, Chapter 6 investigates to what extent the industrial structure of a country influences the observed R&D intensity, and hence would bias the well-known country rankings based on aggregate R&D intensity.

Nowadays, many firms are or have already been engaged in an acquisition process, either as target or acquirer. While these companies seem confident in the potential returns of such endeavors, the positive aspect of those acquisitions has yet to be proven. There is indeed a vivid discussion among scholars, which are divided into two categories. On the one hand, there are those considering acquisitions as a source of additional knowledge that will in turn increase the innovation within the company; and on the other hand, those denigrating acquisitions, assimilating them to a “poison pill” for innovation. The purpose of this research is therefore to investigate whether the acquisitions will influence positively or negatively the innovative performance of companies involved in such processes. Using a quantitative approach, this research analyzed the R&D investments made by those companies and the issued patents gained in return. The research provides mixed results. While acquisitions seem to have a positive impact on the companies‟ innovative performance during the two years following the acquisition, this positive impact does not last and even becomes negative during the third year.

Denna uppsats behandlar värdering av företag samt de immateriella tillgångarna varumärke, patent och goodwill. Vi anser att det finns ett gap mellan de teoretiska modellerna i litteraturen och hur värderare praktiskt tillämpar värderingsmodellerna samt hur dessa värderar immateriella tillgångar. I litteraturen framgår det vilka komponenter de olika värderingsmodellerna infattar, men dock anser vi att det inte lika klart redogörs för hur dessa skall beräknas. Modellerna för värdering av immateriella tillgångar är relativt lätta teoretiskt, men pratiskt menar vi att dessa modeller är svåra att applicera, till följd av brist på information samt hur denna skall integreras i modellerna. Utifrån denna problematik har uppsatsens syfte samt problemformuleringar utformats för att skapa en förståelse för detta fenomen. För att få en klar bild av hur värderingar går till i praktiken valdes olika typer av yrkesverksamma värderare ut till studien. Vi bestämde oss för att diskutera detta fenomen med tre olika företagsvärderare, varav två arbetade på olika banker samt en på ett revisionsbolag, vilket är mer inriktat på värdering av de immateriella tillgångarna. För att få en helhetsbild av problemet intervjuade vi också en revisor vars arbete är att kontrollera de värden vilka beräknas av de olika värderarna. Vi intresserade oss då speciellt för de immateriella tillgångarna, eftersom värderingen av dessa förändrats med de nya IAS/IFRS reglerna. Intervjufrågorna utformades efter syftet för att grundligt få redogjort vilka antaganden respondenterna gjorde samt hur dessa görs och appliceras i värderingsmodellerna. Vi valde att göra öppna personintervjuer, vilket vi ansåg gav möjligheten att diskutera problematiken grundligt med respondenterna. Utifrån den insamlade empirin analyserades informationen mellan respondenterna samt den referensram som studien och problematiken grundade sig på. Det studien utvisade var att grundmodellerna är desamma som inom teorin, men att uppbyggnaden samt de antaganden som görs i modellerna varierar mellan respondenterna och den teoretiska referensramen. Detta tror vi grundar sig i att respondenternas personliga uppfattning påverkar de antaganden som görs i värderingsmodellerna. Vi kunde även bekräfta att modellerna är känsliga för antaganden. Denna svaghet hos modellerna utnyttjade även respondenter, då de vid vissa tillfällen vinklade modellerna till klientens fördel. Samtliga respondenter ansåg att de immateriella tillgångarna kan spela en stor roll vid värdering av ett företag. Studien visade att respondenternas värderingsmetoder för de immateriella tillgångarna skiljde sig marginellt från företagsvärderingsmodellerna. Men vi kunde dock hos respondenterna utläsa en viss problematik när det gäller att hitta relevant information om dessa tillgångar samt att applicera denna i modellerna. Denna problematik är mer påtaglig vid värdering av immateriella tillgångar än vid värdering av företag. En av slutsatserna vi kunde dra när det gäller de nya IAS/IFRS reglerna är att det finns ett gap mellan reglernas syfte och våra respondenters åsikter om hur reglerna fungerar.

Denna uppsats syftar till att analysera vikten av humankapital i alstrandet av ekonomisk tillväxt, genom dess effekt på kunskapsproduktionen i innovationsprocessen. Kunskap är en grundläggande förutsättning för innovation och teknologisk utveckling, vilket i sin tur är den huvudsakliga källan till långsiktig ekonomisk tillväxt. Uppsatsen beskriver kortfattat den miljö i vilken kunskap produceras samt faktorerna som påverkar denna produktion. Dessa faktorer antas utgöras av humankapital, tillgänglighet till universitets- och företags- FoU samt anställningstäthet. Den funktionella regionen spelar en viktig roll i denna process, bland annat genom dess koncentration av ekonomisk aktivitet vilket sammanhänger med agglomerationsfördelarna. För att analysera effekten på kunskapsproduktionen av ovan nämnda förklaringsvariabler genomförs en regressionsanalys där produktionen av ny kunskap mäts genom patent. Denna analys utförs på data på svensk kommunnivå och resultaten bekräftar uppsatsens huvudsakliga hypotes; det vill säga att humankapital har en högst betydande inverkan på kunskapsproduktionen. Dessutom visar analysen att tillgänglighet till FoU även den har en betydande inverkan, i synnerhet tillgänglighet till företags-FoU inom kommunen. Dessa resultat överensstämmer därmed väl med slutsatserna i den teoretiska delen av uppsatsen; det vill säga att lokal tillgänglighet underlättar kunskapsöverföringen som krävs i innovationsprocessen. / This thesis aims at analyzing the importance of human capital for generation of economic growth through its effect on knowledge production in the innovation process. Knowledge is a fundamental precondition of innovation and technological change, which in turn is the main generator of long run economic growth. The thesis briefly outlines the milieu in which knowledge is produced and the factors affecting this production, assumed to be essentially human capital, accessibility to industry and university R&D and density of employment. The functional region is found to play a significant role in this process, partly due to its concentration of economic activity as a consequence of agglomeration effects. In order to analyze the effect on the knowledge production, measured through patents, a regression analysis including the variables specified above is performed on data of the Swedish municipalities. The results of the analysis confirm the main hypothesis of the thesis; that human capital has a major impact on the knowledge production process. Moreover, accessibility to R&D is found to have a significant impact as well; particularly local accessibility to industry R&D. This corresponds well with the conclusions of the theoretical part of the thesis; that local accessibility facilitates the transmission of knowledge useful in the innovation process.

The purpose with this thesis was to examine the most significant factors that affect the number of patents applications submitted on a municipality level in Sweden, with the objective to find the most significant of them. Three factors was chosen and analyzed more closely. The three factors was, investments in R&D made by firms, share of human capital and investments in R&D made by universities. Theses factors was tested against the dependent variable patent applications in three hypothesis and a stepwise regression model was conducted, with the objective to find the most significant variable. The result of the study, shows that not all of the factors had a positive effect on the number of patent applications, further the study indicated that the most significant factor for a municipality in order to have a high number of patent applications, was to have a high share of human capital.

The first essay titled “Fundamental Sources of Long-run Labour Productivity Improvements in Canada” examines the importance of Research and Development activities, as well as the stock of public infrastructure, and economic openness as sources of growth in labour productivity in the Canadian economy within the last four decades. The second paper titled “R&D Spillovers, Innovation, and Entry” extends a theoretical framework to analyze the impact of R&D spillovers on entry and the resulting equilibrium market structure. It is shown that the degree of spillovers plays a fundamental role on the number of firms entering the market, their R&D activities, and social welfare. The third paper titled “The Search for New Drugs: A Theory of R&D in the Pharmaceutical Industry” uses a dynamic model of optimal patent design and in the presence of information externalities studies the evolution of technological progress in the context of a pharmaceutical industry.

This work considers international cooperation or harmonization in patent law and analyzes the two main international patent law governance institutions: the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). A welfarist approach is adopted, proposing that international patent law should improve global welfare, subject to assumptions that the preferences of the world population are heterogeneous, that governments try to maximize the welfare of their citizens, and that international legal organization faces collective action problems. Normatively desirable patent law harmonization reconciles strong reasons for preserving diversity (including the static and dynamic satisfaction of local preferences and adapting to unpredictable change) with strong reasons for cooperation (reducing duplication in patent prosecution, and reconciling imbalanced national externalities, incentives to innovation and costs). The last reason leads to a system of national treatment and minimum standards. The risks presented by the skewed nature of invention are addressed in the international patent system through a form of regional insurance. These reasons for cooperation present two linked but separable collective action problems, supporting the existence of two international institutions to govern patent cooperation. WIPO is best positioned to address duplication in patent prosecution. The WTO is best positioned to address imbalanced national externalities, incentives and costs. However, both the WIPO and the WTO are needed to provide a comprehensive international governance system. Questions about the WTO dispute resolution system, the TRIPs Council, and the WTO’s legitimacy are addressed by advocating a trade stakeholders’ model. Whether international patent law should be seen as a multilateral obligation or a nexus of bilateral obligations is explored. Given diverse national preferences and high uncertainty surrounding the welfare effects of specific patent policies, the process of harmonization is inevitably a political process. This political aspect directly connects the topic of patent law harmonization with the institutional analysis of WIPO and the WTO. The implementation of welfare-enhancing patent law cooperation is best guarded by a process with a wide range of political inputs and transparency. Ultimately, only good international governance can deliver on the potential of the international patent system to promote international innovation, economic growth and world-wide prosperity.

Currently there are approximately 20,000 valid gene patents in the United States. The debate regarding biotechnology and patent law has reached a pinnacle over the patentability of genes. Biotech is fighting a patentability war on two fronts. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit cannot agree regarding the touchstone of patentability for genes; two branches of the Executive are at odds over whether gene sequences qualify under 35 U.S.C. §101. Recent U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit jurisprudence also undermine the patentability of genes as obvious. This thesis argues that the patentable subject matter debate fails to adequately address the goals of patent policy in fostering innovation. Looking to Canadian and U.K. jurisprudence, it is possible to hone an approach to obviousness that addresses the ethical and research concerns in the patentable subject matter debate while fostering investment and patent protection for non-obvious biotech discoveries.

Canada’s Patented Medicines (Notice Of Compliance) Regulations fail to achieve the intended purpose of balancing innovation with timely generic market entry. An examination of the inefficiencies created by the Canadian regulations reveals that key features of U.S. pharmaceutical law should be adopted to improve the disjointed regulatory system that impedes generic competition. Specifically, the regulations should be amended to consolidate multiple proceedings into one cause of action that evaluates patent validity. An economic incentive to challenge weak patents should also be introduced in Canada. These features encourage competition without deterring pharmaceutical research and development because only patents that are not truly inventive will be invalidated after a full inquiry. As such, the intellectual property laws will continue to satisfy Canada’s international intellectual property obligations and protect innovative medicines and allow recovery of costs and monopoly profits to new and useful pharmaceutical products.

Currently there are approximately 20,000 valid gene patents in the United States. The debate regarding biotechnology and patent law has reached a pinnacle over the patentability of genes. Biotech is fighting a patentability war on two fronts. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit cannot agree regarding the touchstone of patentability for genes; two branches of the Executive are at odds over whether gene sequences qualify under 35 U.S.C. §101. Recent U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit jurisprudence also undermine the patentability of genes as obvious. This thesis argues that the patentable subject matter debate fails to adequately address the goals of patent policy in fostering innovation. Looking to Canadian and U.K. jurisprudence, it is possible to hone an approach to obviousness that addresses the ethical and research concerns in the patentable subject matter debate while fostering investment and patent protection for non-obvious biotech discoveries.