在知識經濟的時代，創新為經濟發展的原動力，提升競爭優勢的關鍵，而創新所產生的新技術與新知識，大多透過專利申請取得法律保障，因此，專利也成為衡量研究機構與企業之創新研究能量的一個重要指標。1980年拜杜法案(Bayh-Dole Act)通過後，美國大學積極地投入創新研究，產出大量專利，而美國大學的創新研究發展至今，已演變出各式各樣的專利合作型態，本研究將以社會網絡分析(Social Network Analysis)方法，探討美國大學之創新合作情形，並進一步了解美國大學的合作關係與創新態樣。
為了觀察美國大學的合作情形，本研究以Thomson Innovation專利資料庫作為資料來源，蒐集2006年至2015年於美國申請並核准之美國大學專利，經過篩選，保留美國大學合作專利，最終樣本數為6,020件，由45個國家，1,942位專利權人（包含美國大學、非美國大學、企業、政府單位、研究機構等）所組成。藉由社會網絡分析以及相關分析軟體，繪製出專利權人合作網絡，透析美國大學之創新合作網絡及發展態樣，並透過迴歸分析法，找出美國大學創新能量之影響因素。
研究結果發現，美國大學之合作專利，大多為醫療、生物醫學領域之應用研究，同時，加州大學、德州大學系統、麻省理工大學、史丹佛大學以及美國退伍軍人事務部為重要之核心成員。整體合作創新網絡中，包含四個子團體：加州大學核心發展群（西部地區）、麻省理工核心發展群（東北部地區）、德州大學-三星-喬治亞理工發展網絡（南部地區），以及杜克大學發展網絡。而比較不同時期的合作專利，可發現後期之專利數及合作成員數明顯增加，且合作網絡之地理分布更為多元，合作關係更加廣泛。本研究進一步發現，合作能力以及合作專利之成果品質為影響美國大學研發能量之重要因素，其中，位於東西岸沿海地區、西部地區的美國大學更是具有較高的研發能量。

In the era of knowledge, innovation is the driving force of economic development and the key advantage of competition. The new knowledge and new technologies generated by innovation obtain legal protection through by patenting. Hence, patents become an important indicator for measuring innovation power of research institutions and businesses. After the adoption of Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, U.S. universities actively engage in innovative research and obtain lots of new technologies and patents. Nowadays, the innovative research collaboration pattern of U.S. universities become diverse, e.g. U-I-G, U-I-G-R. This study will explore the diverse collaboration patterns and the determinant of innovation performance in U.S. universities.
This study collects U.S. universities’ patent data from 2006 to 2015 from USPTO. After data filtering, we obtain 6,020 patent composed of 1,942 assignees (U.S. universities, non-U.S. universities, business, government departments and research institutions) from 45 countries. By using social network analysis, we construct assignee collaboration network to observe their collaborative patterns. Moreover, we also figure out the factors that influence U.S. universities’ innovation performance by Regression Analysis.
The result shows that most collaborative patents belong to the medical and biomedical field. UC, UT System, MIT, Stanford Univ. and U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs are the key members of assignee collaboration network. Furthermore, there exist four sub-networks: UC Group (western region), MIT Group (northeastern region), UT-Samsung-GeorgiaTech Group (southern region) and Duke Univ. Group. The result also shows that the assignee collaboration network in period II (2008-2012) is more intensive connected, diverse geographical linkages than the network in period I (2006-2010). In empirical testing, we find that the university’s collaborative ability and the quality of collaborative patents are critical for the innovation performance in U.S. universities. In addition, the universities located in east & west coast and western region will have a relative higher innovation performance.

中文參考文獻
1. Porter, M. E. (1996). 國家競爭優勢. In 李明軒 & 邱如美 (Eds.): 天下文化股份有限公司.
2. 王明妤. (2012). 基於專利資料檢視我國國家創新系統的成果 科技管理學刊 (Vol. 17, pp. 49-78).
3. 周瑋祺. (2014). 瑞典推動產業創新發展之研析. 科技法律透析, 26(8), 32-49.
4. 洪世章, & 林于婷. (2003). 國家創新系統: 概念, 成因與效果 研考雙月刊 (Vol. 27, pp. 24-33).
5. 陳宗權, 林博文, & 朱默庵. (2012). 產學合作中的知識探索與利用 臺大管理論叢 (Vol. 22, pp. 59-86).
6. 榮泰生. (2013). UCINET在社會網絡分析(SNA)之應用. 臺北市: 五南文化.
7. 劉逸群. (2013). 解析芬蘭創新建立台灣企業創新之路. 品質月刊, 49(2), 8-11.
8. 蔡達智. (2015). 大學產學合作理論與實務. 台灣台南市: 成大出版社.
9. 簡惠閔. (2007). 美國大學產學合作研究發展之實施現況及其對我國之啟示 教育政策論壇 (Vol. 10, pp. 31-67).

英文參考文獻
1. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., Di Costa, F., & Solazzi, M. (2009). University–industry collaboration in Italy: A bibliometric examination. Technovation, 29(6), 498-507.
2. Afonso, A., Ramírez, J. J., & Díaz-Puente, J. M. (2012). University-industry cooperation in the education domain to foster competitiveness and employment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 3947-3953.
3. Aiamy, M., & Keshtiaray, N. (2012). A perspective of the cooperation between university and industry at Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj Branch, and its comparison with Kingston University London. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 2509-2513.
4. Anderson, T. R., Daim, T. U., & Lavoie, F. F. (2007). Measuring the efficiency of university technology transfer. Technovation, 27(5), 306-318.
5. AUTM. (2016). Highlights of AUTM's U.S. Licensing Activity Survey FY2015. Retrieved from http://www.autm.net/
6. Beers, C., & Zand, F. (2014). R&D cooperation, partner diversity, and innovation performance: an empirical analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(2), 292-312.
7. Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. science, 323(5916), 892-895.
8. Cantner, U., & Graf, H. (2006). The network of innovators in Jena: An application of social network analysis. Research policy, 35(4), 463-480.
9. Cook, K. S. (1982). "Network Structures from an Exchange Perspective" in Social Structure and Network Analysis. (M. P. & L. Nan Eds.): Beverly Hills.
10. Cook, K. S., Emerson, R. M., Gillmore, M. R., & Yamagishi, T. (1983). The distribution of power in exchange networks: Theory and experimental results. American journal of sociology, 89(2), 275-305.
11. Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi‐dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of management studies, 47(6), 1154-1191.
12. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research policy, 29(2), 109-123.
13. Fagerberg, J., & Sapprasert, K. (2011). National innovation systems: the emergence of a new approach. Science and public policy, 38(9), 669-679.
14. Freeman, L. (2004). The development of social network analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science. South Carolina: BookSurge.
15. George, G., Zahra, S. A., & Wood, D. R. (2002). The effects of business–university alliances on innovative output and financial performance: a study of publicly traded biotechnology companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(6), 577-609.
16. Goerzen, A. (2007). Alliance networks and firm performance: The impact of repeated partnerships. Strategic Management Journal, 28(5), 487-509.
17. Goldfarb, B., & Henrekson, M. (2003). Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research policy, 32(4), 639-658.
18. Gould, R. V., & Fernandez, R. M. (1989). Structures of mediation: A formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociological methodology, 89-126.
19. Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), 473-496.
20. Hanneman, R. A., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to Social Network Methods: University of California.
21. Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965–1988. The review of economics and statistics, 80(1), 119-127.
22. Hewitt-Dundas, N. (2013). The role of proximity in university-business cooperation for innovation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1-23.
23. Ivanova, I. A., & Leydesdorff, L. (2014). Rotational symmetry and the transformation of innovation systems in a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 86, 143-156.
24. Kosorukoff, A., & Passmore, D. L. (2011). Social Network Analysis: Theory and Applications: Passmore, D. L.
25. Krugman, P. R. (1991). Geography and trade: MIT press.
26. Lai, W.-H. (2011). Willingness-to-engage in technology transfer in industry–university collaborations. Journal of Business Research, 64(11), 1218-1223.
27. Laumann, E. O. (1976). Networks of collective action: A perspective on community influence systems. New York: Academic Press.
28. Laumann, E. O., & Pappi, F. U. (2013). Networks of collective action: A perspective on community influence systems: Elsevier.
29. Laursen, K., Reichstein, T., & Salter, A. (2011). Exploring the effect of geographical proximity and university quality on university–industry collaboration in the United Kingdom. Regional studies, 45(4), 507-523.
30. Lee, Y. S. (2000). The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 25(2), 111-133.
31. Lundvall, B.-Å. (1992). National systems of innovation: An analytical framework. London: Pinter.
32. Lundvall, B.-Å. (2010). National systems of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning (Vol. 2): Anthem Press.
33. Mansfield, E., & Lee, J.-Y. (1996). The modern university: contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support. Research policy, 25(7), 1047-1058.
34. Marsden, P. V. (1982). Brokerage behavior in restricted exchange networks. Social structure and network analysis, 7(4), 341-410.
35. Mowery, D., & Sampat, B. (2005). The Bayh-Dole act of 1980 and university-industry technology transfer: a model for other OECD governments? Essays in honor of Edwin Mansfield, 233-245.
36. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980. Research policy, 30(1), 99-119.
37. Nelson, R. R. (1993). National innovation systems: a comparative analysis: Oxford university press.
38. Newman, M. E., & Girvan, M. (2004). Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Physical review E, 69(2), 026113.
39. OECD. (1997). National Innovation Systems. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/
40. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2004). Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organization science, 15(1), 5-21.
41. Owen-Smith, J., Riccaboni, M., Pammolli, F., & Powell, W. W. (2002). A comparison of US and European university-industry relations in the life sciences. Management science, 48(1), 24-43.
42. 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.
43. Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259-280.
44. Ponds, R., Oort, F. v., & Frenken, K. (2009). Innovation, spillovers and university–industry collaboration: an extended knowledge production function approach. Journal of Economic Geography, 10(2), 231-255.
45. Ponds, R., Van Oort, F., & Frenken, K. (2007). The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration. Papers in regional science, 86(3), 423-443.
46. Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations: Free Press.
47. Powell, W. W., & Snellman, K. (2004). The knowledge economy. Annu. Rev. Sociol., 30, 199-220.
48. Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations: Simon and Schuster.
49. Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. (2005). University–incubator firm knowledge flows: assessing their impact on incubator firm performance. Research policy, 34(3), 305-320.
50. Santoro, M. D. (2000). Success breeds success: The linkage between relationship intensity and tangible outcomes in industry–university collaborative ventures. The journal of high technology management research, 11(2), 255-273.
51. Shane, S. (2004). Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh-Dole Act on university patenting in the United States. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 127-151.
52. Sharif, N. (2006). Emergence and development of the National Innovation Systems concept. Research policy, 35(5), 745-766.
53. 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(1), 27-48.
54. Sorenson, O., Rivkin, J. W., & Fleming, L. (2006). Complexity, networks and knowledge flow. Research policy, 35(7), 994-1017.
55. Thursby, J. G., & Kemp, S. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research policy, 31(1), 109-124.
56. Vaivode, I. (2015). Triple Helix Model of University–Industry–Government Cooperation in the Context of Uncertainties. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 213, 1063-1067.
57. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (Vol. 8): Cambridge university press.
58. WEF. (2016). The Global Competitiveness Report 2016-2017. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/
59. Weimann, G. (1982). On the importance of marginality: One more step into the two-step flow of communication. American Sociological Review, 764-773.
60. West, J., & Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging external sources of innovation: a review of research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 814-831.
61. WIPO, INSEAD, & University, C. (2017). Global Innovation Index 2017. Retrieved from https://www.globalinnovationindex.org
62. Zeng, S. X., Xie, X. M., & Tam, C. M. (2010). Relationship between cooperation networks and innovation performance of SMEs. Technovation, 30(3), 181-194.
63. Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Intellectual capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review, 88(1), 290-306.