OPIC IP Roundtable 21 November 2007 Intellectual Property Policy at the University of Cambridge Ian Leslie Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research

OPIC IP Roundtable 21 November 2007 Academics UniversitySponsors Consultancy Research Grants and Contracts “The IP Policy” Disposition of IPR

OPIC IP Roundtable 21 November 2007 Research volumes YearResearch grants & contracts income Increase from previous year 2006/7£212m+8% 2005/6£196m+10.3% 2004/5£188.7m+10.7% 2003/4£176.3m+10.8%

OPIC IP Roundtable 21 November 2007 Research income 2002 ($M)

OPIC IP Roundtable 21 November 2007 Agreements with Funders Some laid down: –Research Councils –Medical Charities –Other Charities –Government Some open to negotiation: –Industrial Contracts –European Union

OPIC IP Roundtable 21 November 2007 Key issues 1.How does the University of Cambridge treat IP created by academics in the course of their research? 2.How does this policy interact with funders’ standard terms? 3.What is Cambridge’s approach to commercializing IP?

OPIC IP Roundtable 21 November 2007 IPR Policy When: –series of Reports and Discussions from 2001 till vote in December 2005 Why: –provide some uniformity regardless of funding source –safeguard individuals interests (eg student supervisor relationship) –be explicit about rights of academics –recognise obligations to funders –try to avoid joint ownership

OPIC IP Roundtable 21 November 2007 Prior to 2001 University went out of it’s way not to assert ownership of IPR Up to 1980’s most IPR was generated without specific sponsorship (by % of University income was external research grants and contracts, now 40%) The Wild West: resolution of inventorship only available through the courts Some people really liked this Consultancy not regulated, fear that it would be by a new policy

OPIC IP Roundtable 21 November 2007 Motivation (Real and Alleged/Misguided) Alleged/Misguided: The University should make more money out of it’s intellectual property. Very few universities do make money from technology transfer. We do, but it’s ~3% of our research grant and contract income. Real: –Transparency, –Protecting the rights of individuals who may be a in weak position (e.g. students, e.g. supervisors) –Consistency or right independent of research sponsor both across the University and within a team –Taking responsibility for commercialisation where appropriate

OPIC IP Roundtable 21 November 2007 IPR Policy: What (1) Default policy which holds in the absence of any other sponsorship agreements: –Copyright (and other non-registerable rights) owned by creator –Right to register patent (and other registerable rights) lies with University but creator may choose to make public rather than register –Cambridge Enterprise will work with creators to commercialise intellectual property, and –Creators acting jointly may choose to have registered rights assigned to themselves –Revenue share laid out for cases of working with and without Cambridge Enterprise

OPIC IP Roundtable 21 November 2007 IPR Policy: What (2) Research which arises from sponsored research is usually governed by the sponsorship agreement which overrides the default policy University will not enter a sponsorship agreement without the consent of the academic Default policy close to Research Council policy Students own all intellectual property they create if created independently and with no overriding sponsorship agreement. If jointly created then treated as academics.

OPIC IP Roundtable 21 November 2007 IPR Policy: What (3) Share of Financial Return: Note no TTO slice! Academics (jointly) UniversityDepartment < £100,00090%5% Next £100,000 60%20% > £200,00034%33%

OPIC IP Roundtable 21 November 2007 The Reaction Policy arrived at was a synthesis of debate, often very confrontational, not helped by a very ambiguous original proposal. Policy changes have to be agreed by a majority of academics. Policy was portrayed as draconian and an appropriation of intellectual property by a small but vocal group “Campaign for Academic Freedom” in national press

OPIC IP Roundtable 21 November 2007 The Result Was only policy ballot since Largest turnout ever, largest majority ever in favour (2005). Why: Consistency in teams; protection of those in weak positions; Campaign for Academic Freedom perceived by many simply as greedy

OPIC IP Roundtable 21 November 2007 Two Examples PrePolicy hangover: Holographic projection (student / supervisor conflict) Open source: Xensource

OPIC IP Roundtable 21 November 2007 Interaction with Sponsors Research Councils and Medical Charities consistent with policy, except potentially software copyright. Industry: Many models, attempts to standardize in UK

OPIC IP Roundtable 21 November 2007 Industrial Sponsors No Bayh-Dole Act! In late 90’s misguided push for economic return from industry sponsored IPR Probably a good thing, readjust the balance Flexibility: different industry requires different approaches, but for major sponsors good to have framework agreements

OPIC IP Roundtable 21 November 2007 Overall Commercialization Strategy Wholly owned company (est 2006) to handle technology transfer (licensing, new venture creation, consultancy, seed funding) Mission (in priority order): 1.Transfer knowledge by commericialization when appropriate; 2.Help academics commercialize their inventions; and 3.Provide financial return to academics, departments, and the University Revenue sharing policy is challenging In longer term may look at offering services to other universities in region