雖然創業型大學的趨勢仍然是炙手可熱的議題，這其中卻隱藏著一個大學未能成功獲取大學智慧財產權的現象。當大學發明的專利不是由大學所擁有時，這樣的情形稱之為繞道專利。許多研究紛紛討論影響大學教授發明人繞過大學機構申請專利的決定性因素。本篇從組織及大學教授發明人層面的因素出發，研究範圍為全台灣共六十三所電機工程學系中五百二十一位大學教授發明人，共計四千一百七十二筆專利作為研究對象。結果顯示出大學技轉中心的效率及能力顯著地降低了大學繞道專利的發生；而大學教授發明人過去研究商業化的經驗及人際網絡的範疇顯著地增加了大學繞道專利的情形。

While the trend of entrepreneurial university is still an issue which draws numerous interests and studies. It lies the ongoing phenomenon of university failing to appropriate the university intellectual property rights. This raises the concern about the determinants why faculty inventors bypass their university institution. This study examines factors from organizational and university inventor levels in electrical engineering department of 63 universities, 521 faculty inventors and 4,172 patents from TIPO in Taiwan. The results show that the effectiveness and capability of TTOs can significantly reduce the university bypassing patents; while faculty inventors engage in past research commercialization and wider social network scope are unfavorable to capture university patent assignment. Theoretical and managerial implications for reducing bypass patents are discussed .

Abstract----- i
Acknowledgement----- ii
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 Patent----- 7
2.2.1 Organizational Factors----- 10
2.2.2 University Inventor Factors----- 14
2.3 Research Framework----- 17
Chapter 3 Methodology----- 18
3.1 Data Collection----- 18
3.2 Variable and Measurement----- 21
3.2.1 Dependent Variable----- 21
3.2.2 Independent Variable----- 22
3.2.3 Control Variable----- 26
3.3 Data Analysis----- 27
Chapter 4 Results----- 30
4.1 Descriptive Statistics----- 30
4.1.1 Overview of a 10-year Bypassing Patent Phenomenon----- 30
4.1.2 Correlation----- 32
4.2 The Logistic Regression Models----- 33
4.2.1 The Stepwise Regression Models----- 33
4.2.2 Hypothesis Tests----- 37
4.2.3 The Interaction Terms Regression Models----- 38
Chapter 5 Discussion----- 40
5.1 Implications of the Organizational Level----- 40
5.2 Implications of the University Inventor Level----- 42
5.3 Limitations and Future Research Directions----- 44
Chapter 6 Conclusion----- 47
References----- 49
Appendix 1----- 56
Appendix 2----- 57

Aldridge, T. T., & Audretsch, D. (2011). The Bayh-Dole Act and scientist entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1058-1067.

Andretsch, D., Aldridge, T., & Oettl, A. (2006). The knowledge filter and economic growth: The role of scientist entrepreneurship. Discussion Papers on Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy, 1106.

Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2007). To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics, 70(2), 333-354.

Belenzon, S., & Shankerman, M. (2009). University Knowledge Transfer: Private Ownership, Incentives, and Local Development Objectives The Journal of Law & Economics, 52(1), 111-144.

Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2004). Academic entrepreneurs: Social learning and participation in university technology transfer. Work in progress.

Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2006). Entpreprenerial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 175-188.

Bercovitz, J., & Feldmann, M. (2008). Academic Entrepreneurs: Organizational Change at the Individual Level. Oranization Science, 19(1), 69-89.

Chang, Y.-C., Yang, P. Y., & Chen, M.-H. (2009). The determinants of academic research commercial performance: Towards an organizational ambidexterity perspective. Research Policy, 38(6), 936-946.

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.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2002). Research methods in education: routledge.
Craig Boardman, P., & Ponomariov, B. L. (2009). University researchers working with private companies. Technovation, 29(2), 142-153.

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.

D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2010). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 316-339.

Dahlborg, C., Lewensohn, D., Danell, R., & Sundberg, C. J. (2016). To invent and let others innovate: a framework of academic patent transfer modes. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(3), 538-563.

Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32(2), 209-227.

Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages. Research Policy, 27, 823-833.

Etzkowitz, H. (2016). Innovation in Innovation: The Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293-337.

Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Cantisano Terra, B. R. (2000). The Future of the University and the University of the Future: Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm. Research Policy, 313-330.

Fini, R., Lacetera, N., & Shane, S. (2010). Inside or outside the IP system? Business creation in academia. Research Policy, 39(8), 1060-1069.

Fong, P. S. W., Chang, X., & Chen, Q. (2015). Faculty patent assignment in the Chinese mainland: evidence from the top 35 patent application universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(1), 69-95.

Friedman, J., & Siberman, J. (2003). University Technology Transfer Do Incentives, Management, and Location Matter. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 17-30.

Fukugawa, N. (2009). Determinants of licensing activities of local public technology centers in Japan. Technovation, 29(12), 885-892.

Göktepe-Hulten, D., & Mahagaonkar, P. (2009). Inventing and patenting activities of scientists: in the expectation of money or reputation? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(4), 401-423.

Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. J. J. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy, 35(6), 790-807.
Gianiodis, P. T., Markman, G. D., & Panagopoulos, A. (2016). Entrepreneurial universities and overt opportunism. Small Business Economics, 47(3), 609-631.

Gregorio, D. D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32, 209-227.

Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2010). The development of an entrepreneurial university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), 43-74.

Harmon, B., Ardishvili, A., Cardozo, R., Elder, T., Leuthold, J., Parshall, J., . . . Smith, D. (1997). Mapping the university technology transfer process. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(6), 423-434.

Humberstone, R. (2009). The impact of university licensing behaviour on scientist disclosure. Working paper.

Huyghe, A., Knockaert, M., Piva, E., & Wright, M. (2016). Are researchers deliberately bypassing the technology transfer office? An analysis of TTO awareness. Small Business Economics, 47(3), 589-607.

Inzelt, A. (2004). The evolution of university–industry–government relationships during transition. Research Policy, 33(6-7), 975-995.

Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360.

Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions. The American Economic Review, 91(1), 240-259.
Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2009). Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the Current University Invention Ownership Model. Research Policy, 38(9), 1407-1422.

Kneller, R. (1999). Intellectual property rights and university—industry technology transfer in Japan. Science and Public Policy, 26(2), 113-124.

Kneller, R. (2006). The beginning of university entrepreneurship in Japan: TLOs and bioventures lead the way. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(4), 435-456.

Lach, S., & Schankerman, M. (2008). Incentives and Invention in Universities. The RAND Journal of Economics, 39(2), 403-433.

Lawton Smith, H., & Ho, K. (2006). Measuring the performance of Oxford University, Oxford Brookes University and the government laboratories’ spin-off companies. Research Policy, 35(10), 1554-1568.

Lee, J., & Stuen, E. (2015). University reputation and technology commercialization: evidence from nanoscale science. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(3), 586-609.

Levin, R. C., Klevorick, A. K., Nelsom, R. R., Winter, S. G., Grilbert, R., & Griliches, Z. (1987). Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1987(3), 783-831.

Lindholm Dahlstrand, Å. T., Lawton Smith, H., & Baines, N. (2016). Academic Entrepreneurship: Spin-offs in Sweden and the UK. University Evolution, Entrepreneurial Activity and Regional Competitiveness, 127-150.

Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2005). University-based technology initiatives: Quantitative and qualitative evidence. Research Policy, 34(3), 253-257.

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 and Corporate Change, 16(4), 641-655.

Lissoni, F., Llerena, P., McKelvey, M., & Sanditov, B. (2008). Academic patenting in Europe: new evidence from the KEINS database. Research Evaluation, 17(2), 87-102.
Lowe, R. A. (2006). Who Develops a University Invention? The Impact of Tacit Knowledge and Licensing Policies. Journal of Technology Transer, 31, 415-429.

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.

Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., & Phan, P. H. (2009). Supply-Side Innovation and Technology Commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 625-649.

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

Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2007). From human capital to social capital: A longitudinal study of technology‐based academic entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship theory and practice.

Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2005). The Bayh-DoleAact of 1980 and University-Industry Technology Transferr: A Model for Other OECD Governments? Journal of Technology Transfer, 30 1/2, 115-127.

Mowery, D. C., & Shane, S. (2002). Introduction to the Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer. Management Science, 48(1), v-ix.

O'Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy, 34(7), 994-1009.

O’Shea, R., Allen, T. J., O’Gorman, C., & Roche, F. (2004). Universities and Technology Transfer: A Review of Academic Entrepreneurship Literature. Irish Journal of Management, 25(2), 11-29.

Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., . . . Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423-442.

Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). Relationship-based university-industry links and open innovation: towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259-280.
Piaget, J. (1964). Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. Journal of research in science teaching, 2(3), 176-186.

Powell, Walter W., White, Douglas R., Koput, Kenneth W., & Owen‐Smith, J. (2005). Network Dynamics and Field Evolution: The Growth of Interorganizational Collaboration in the Life Sciences American Journal of Sociology, 110(4), 1132-1205.

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.

Rivette, K. G., & Kline, D. (2000). Rembrandts in the attic: Unlocking the hidden value of patents: Harvard Business Press.

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., & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2003). What Patent Real about Universities-The Case of Belgium. Journal of Technology Transer, 28, 47-51.

Shane, S. (2001). Technological Opportunities and New Firm Creation. Management Science, 42(2), 205-220.

Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.

Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 27-48.

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

Thorp, H., & Goldstein, B. (2013). Engines of innovation: The entrepreneurial university in the twenty-first century: UNC Press Books.

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., & Kemp, S. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing Research Policy, 31, 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, M., Thursby, J., & Gupta-Mukherjee, S. (2007). Are there real effects of licensing on academic research? A life cycle view. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(4), 577-598.

Tijssen, R. J. W., van Leeuwen, T. N., & van Wijk, E. (2009). Benchmarking university–industry research cooperation worldwide: performance measurements and indicators based on co-authorship data for the world's largest universities. Research Evaluation, 18(1), 13-24.

Zucker, L., Darby, M., & Armstrong, J. (1998). Geographically localized knowledge: spillovers or markets? Economic Inquiry, 36, 65-86.