Location: Novotel, Bristol
IPR and KT are issues of prime importance to all UK universities, where institutional policies for IPR are at many different stages of development. This timely topic, presented for the first time by the Council, attracted 30 delegates from a wide range of Institutions throughout the UK, offering a rare opportunity to share experiences with seasoned IP professionals and newcomers alike. The four themes were expertly presented, covering “Online teaching of IP awareness” (Prof Ruth Soetendorp, Bournemouth), “IP generation through PGRS and Post-Docs” (Dr Sue Boulton, Plymouth), “Spinning out companies from HEI’s” (Dr Sarah McNaughton, Oxford) and “Management of KTPs” (James Best, Wales). Although undergraduate and PGT issues were addressed, the Chair ensured that the PGR agenda was strongly focused throughout.
A key feature of the programme was the Case Study on “IPR issues with an externally funded PGRS”, which was very well received by participants. This had been specially written by the Chair, based on his personal experience. Three break-out groups discussed this scenario page-by-page, prior to sharing the issues in plenary session – many turned out to be common sense, perhaps, but some really delicate points emerged as to who really owns the IPR in a sponsored studentship – and how can academics protect the IP rights of their research team more effectively.
The protection of IP through Patents was discussed in context with other methods, such as Copyright and Trade Marks. Licensing constituted a major route for knowledge transfer of ideas. However, it became clear that there is often a long lead time before apparently successful projects (in terms of publicity and publications) showed a positive financial return to the University.
As regards support from the Research Councils and Charitable Foundations, it is evident that these organisations make few claims on the IP emanating from research projects, often allocating the entire IPR to the Institution. By contrast, research funding from industrial sources was very often tied in with an expectation that the IP would at best be shared, or allocated solely for the benefit of the commercial sponsor – sometimes with prejudice to the publication rights of the PGRS, and this could ultimately impact on the quality of the thesis.
One key issue that emerged is the relative emphasis that HEIs put on the value of IP and KT in the Science and Technology arenas, by comparison with research in the Arts and Humanities. Yet the creative arts area has a significant potential for generating IP, although it appears that the management of IPR at some HEIs may be restricting the opportunities for academics to exploit their IPR in the Arts and Humanities. This topic would merit further reflection and discussion at a future UKCGE meeting.
Report Authors: Professor Mick Fuller and Professor Tony Fell
Date: 7th June 2007
