摘要
1980年美国《拜杜法案》的出台、1984年中国《专利法》的颁布加快了中美大学专利活动的发展。虽然2003年中国大学专利申请量与授权量已超越美国大学且以发明专利为主,但中国大学专利"授权多、转化少、维持短"的现象并未得到有效改善。突破传统大学专利研究将内容局限于大学专利活动申请、授权、投入经费等表层指标的不足,选用中美一流大学专利领域布局、专利法律状态的有效性、PCT专利情况(国际标准)及专利技术转让情况(社会竞争力)4个指标,对中美大学的专利活动质量进行了深入研究。结果发现,中国一流大学在专利科技含量与国际竞争力等方面明显落后于美国一流大学,但近年来差距有所缩小;中美专利法规政策、大学专利活动组织管理、大学专利研发市场紧密程度等因素是导致中美一流大学专利活动质量差异的主要原因。
In 1980 the introduction of American"Bayh-Dole Act",in 1984Chinese"Patent Law"promulgated for the rapid development of Chinese and American university patenting activity into a powerful policy thrust.Although Chinese university overtook American university in the number of patent application and grant and is given priority to invention patent type,the phenomenon of Chinese university patent"more grant,less transformation,shorter maintain"has not been effectively improve.This paper tried to break the tradition of university patent research,that content limitation during patent application,patent grant,investment in science and technology and other surface indicators,select four indicators such as the patent field layout,the validity of patent legal status,PCT patent situation(international standards)and patent technology transfer(social competence),in order to the deeper comparison of the quality in the Chinese and American top universities patent activity.Research shows that:Chinese top universities are obviously lagging behind American top universities in the terms of patent technology content and international competitiveness,fortunately is the gap has been reduced in recent years;Chinese and American patent laws and relevant regulations,the organization and management of patent activity,the tightness between patent research and technology market and other factors are the main reason leading to the difference of the quality in the Chinese and American top universities patent activity.
出处
《科技进步与对策》
CSSCI
北大核心
2015年第19期111-118,共8页
Science & Technology Progress and Policy
关键词
中美一流大学
专利活动
数据分析
质量比较
专利研究
Chinese and American top Universities
Patent Activity
Data Analysis
Quality Comparison
Patent Research