Academic value of patents versus published papers
Patents and papers are not adversary in general. One can patent and then publish. And kill two birds with one stone. Both get public after independent examination. Each settles some ground, and both can be cited. Working on a useful patent is generally harder than on a useless paper. Both papers and patents can serve very different purposes.

I have been working in industrial research for 15 years. I have about the same number of patents and papers (altogether is compared to academia).

I have observed a shift in academia. It used to consider patents were useles. It now regards patents with a gentler look. The (bibliometric) value of a single patent can be estimated, on average, between half or twice the value of a single journal paper. 

Whether your patent has generated money, been cited in other patents or papers, or proved a collaboration, those are figures you can claim as an innovative value. 

Having no paper at all might be an issue though. It suggests that you have not passed peer review. For some, 7 patent + 1 paper is better than 8 patents. 

If you can  convert part of your patents into papers, at least once, that could be a plus.