patents were filed by the
6619 UK in 2015 , compared with 56,492 in Germany and 11,595 in France
additional remuneration to the university . In this way , the company retains ownership of the IP and obtains the majority of the benefit whilst the university is financially rewarded and can demonstrate the impact of their research , which is , of course , invaluable when it comes to securing future funding .
Alternatively , the agreement might set out that the university is not paid by the company but will own the IP generated during the collaboration and will grant the company a licence to use the IP in the technical fields relevant to their commercial markets . Such an agreement might also include provisions through which the company may negotiate to buy the IP outright from the university .
IP ownership should be agreed on the basis of what is going to maximise the commercial success of the project overall , and not purely on the individual contributions of the collaborating parties . That will ultimately provide the most benefit to all collaborators .
We also recommend avoiding co-ownership of IP rights , as sensible as it may sound during negotiations . Co-ownership can reduce the ability of one or both co-owner to exploit patentprotected IP . Co-ownership can also quickly become problematic if the collaborators develop separate business aims over time . ■
© iQoncept / Shutterstock
Read online at : ukspa . org . uk / breakthrough spring 2017 | UKSPA breakthrough | 35