學術單位是發明和研究的基礎。似乎有一定比例的大學教授運用學校實驗室所產出的發明，申請專利時繞過了他們的大學。大學教授繞過他們所就職的大學並尋求外部資源申請專利的現象頗為吸引人，因為這些可獲得專利的發明是由政府和大學提供項目資助的，然而這些發明的所有權應該屬於大學而不是大學教授或大學外的組織。本研究使用二元邏輯斯迴歸分析，蒐集來自台灣57個電機工程系大學，發明人為電機系教授的4,172項專利的為樣本數據，檢驗組織及技術因素與繞道專利的關係，並且根據台灣經濟部智慧財產局（TIPO）的專利數據，調查2005至2014年間專利申請的數量和繞道現象的趨勢。研究結果顯示，採用更有效和組織良好機制的TTO減少了繞道專利的發生。而當專利更廣泛和更激進時（就後引證和專利範圍而言），繞道活動會增加。在研究結果中，專利質量（就前引證而言）與繞道專利沒有顯著相關。本研究提供學校技轉中心有幫助的見解和管理意涵。

Academic units are the foundation of inventions and research. It appears that a certain percentage of university scientists bypass their institutions when they privately own the discoveries made in laboratories of said institutions. The phenomenon of university scientists who bypass their universities and search for external resources to file patents is rather intriguing since those patentable discoveries are project-funded from government and universities, which indicates that those discoveries were supposed to belong to universities rather than faculties or university-external organizations. This study examines factors from organizational and technological levels by using logistic regression analysis with a sample data of 4,172 patents originated from university inventors, 57 Departments of Electrical Engineering in Taiwanese universities. We collect patent data from Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) and investigate the number of patent application and the trend of bypassing phenomenon during a decade of 2005-2014. The results show that TTOs with more effective and well-organized mechanisms reduce the occurrence of bypassing patents. Conversely, bypassing activities increase when patents are broader and more radical (in terms of backward citations and claims). However, patent quality (in terms of forward citations) is not significantly related to bypassing patents. Useful insights for technology transfer practitioners and managerial implications are provided in this study.

ABSTRACT i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES iv
LIST OF FIGURES v
CHAPTER 1　INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 2　LITERATURE REVIEW 2
2.1 The bypassing patent phenomenon 2
2.2 The determinants of bypassing 8
2.3 Organizational determinants 14
2.4 Technological determinants 19
2.5 Research framework 23
CHAPTER 3　METHODOLOGY 24
3.1 Scope of data 24
3.2 Data collection 25
3.3 Variable and measure 29
3.3.1 Dependent variable 31
3.3.2 Independent variables 31
3.3.3 Control variables 36
3.4 Regression analysis 38
CHAPTER 4　EMPIRICAL RESULTS 40
4.1 Bypassing phenomenon 40
4.2 Correlation 45
4.3 The logistic regression models 46
CHAPTER 5　DISCUSSION 50
5.1 Implication of organizational results 50
5.2 Implication of technological results 51
5.3 Research limitations and recommendations for future research 54
CHAPTER 6　CONCLUSION 57
REFERENCES 59
APPENDIX 62

Åstebro, T. (2016). Allocation of IP control rights and effective technology commercialization at universities.

Audretsch, D. B., Aldridge, T. T., & Oettl, A. (2006). The knowledge filter and economic growth: The role of scientist entrepreneurship.

Capellari, S., & De Stefano, D. (2014). University-owned and university-invented patents: a network analysis on two Italian universities. Scientometrics, 99(2), 313-329.

Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2005). Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy, 34(3), 369-384.

Crespi, G., D’Este, P., Fontana, R., & Geuna, A. (2011). The impact of academic patenting on university research and its transfer. Research Policy, 40(1), 55-68.

Crespi, G. A., Geuna, A., Nomaler, Ö., & Verspagen, B. (2010). University IPRs and knowledge transfer: is university ownership more efficient? Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 19(7), 627-648.

Dahlin, K. B., & Behrens, D. M. (2005). When is an invention really radical?: Defining and measuring technological radicalness. Research Policy, 34(5), 717-737.

Falk, N., & Train, K. (2017). Patent valuation with forecasts of forward citations. Journal of Business Valuation and Economic Loss Analysis, 12(1), 101-121.

Foltz, J., Barham, B., & Kim, K. (2000). Universities and agricultural biotechnology patent production. Agribusiness: An International Journal, 16(1), 82-95.

Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: do incentives, management, and location matter? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 17-30.

Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. J. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy, 35(6), 790-807.

Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2002). Patents, citations, and innovations: A window on the knowledge economy: MIT press.

Karvonen, M., & Kässi, T. (2011). Patent analysis for analysing technological convergence. foresight, 13(5), 34-50.

Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial & Corporate Change, 16(4), 641-655.

Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., & Phan, P. H. (2008). Full-time faculty or part-time entrepreneurs. IEEE transactions on engineering management, 55(1), 29-36.

Matkin, G. W. (1990). Technology transfer and the university: ERIC.

Meyer, M. (2003). Academic patents as an indicator of useful research? A new approach to measure academic inventiveness. Research Evaluation, 12(1), 17-27.

Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980. Research Policy, 30(1), 99-119.

Powers, J. B., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: a resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(3), 291-311.

Roberts, E. B., & Malonet, D. E. (1996). Policies and structures for spinning off new companies from research and development organizations. R&D Management, 26(1), 17-48.

Rogers, E. M., Yin, J., & Hoffmann, J. (2000). Assessing the effectiveness of technology transfer offices at US research universities. The Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, 12(1), 47-80.

Saragossi, S., & de la Potterie, B. v. P. (2003). What patent data reveal about universities: the case of Belgium. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 47-51.

Shane, S. (2001). Technology regimes and new firm formation. Management science, 47(9), 1173-1190.
Siegel, D. S., Veugelers, R., & Wright, M. (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: performance and policy implications. Oxford review of economic policy, 23(4), 640-660.

Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 111-133.

Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(1), 115-142.

Sterzi, V. (2013). Patent quality and ownership: An analysis of UK faculty patenting. Research Policy, 42(2), 564-576.

Thursby, J., Fuller, A. W., & Thursby, M. (2009). US faculty patenting: Inside and outside the university. Research Policy, 38(1), 14-25.

Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major US universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1-2), 59-72.

Thursby, J. G., & Kemp, S. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy, 31(1), 109-124.

Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management science, 48(1), 90-104.

Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2005). Faculty patent activity and assignment patterns. Report to the Kauffman Foundation, Kansas City, MO.

Tong, X., & Frame, J. D. (1994). Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data. Research Policy, 23(2), 133-141.

Trappey, A. J. C., Trappey, C. V., Wu, C.-Y., & Lin, C.-W. (2012). A patent quality analysis for innovative technology and product development. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 26(1), 26-34.