Issue link: https://htpgraphics.uberflip.com/i/224625
building a fortress of patents around its core business area. That's why a lot of the comments about the University's patenting activity are wide of the mark. Generally the metrics used and comparisons and links made don't directly apply to our situation. It's like comparing apples with pears. Sometimes we have to carry out further work due to the complex nature of our projects and this extended timeline means that we have to go beyond the initial priority patent filing and seek to acquire patents in various countries. This can be costly and we try not to do this too often without a partner on board by that stage. Our goal is always the same though, which is, in exchange for shares or a royalty deal, to pass on the patent(s) to a start-up company or licensee, as part of our overall technology transfer arrangement. This is regularly done with the assistance of our preferred commercialisation partners, such as The IP Group and The UMIP Premier Fund. We do this as soon as it becomes feasible. The recipients then bear the burden of developing the invention. This includes progressing the patents, and defending them if necessary, and taking the invention all of the way to a successful market introduction, whether that is a new product or an improved process. These new owners, or licensees, will most likely apply for more related patents as they improve upon the foundation that the University has provided to them. This must surely be the 'right' role for the University. It is able to play to its strengths through creative thinking, experimentation and early stage research and development, to get to a point where someone with a relevant infrastructure can take on a patent. This will be an existing company in many cases (through a patent licence) or by entrepreneurs and investors helping us build a new company where it is a brand new or extremely broad opportunity (through an assignment of the patent). We like to collaborate with those who are interested in building business from university research. We don't go our own way and hang on to patents for years and years to speculate. At least we don't do so without very good reasons or in special circumstances. Our project management services continue but the main responsibility for, and usually the ownership of, the University's patents are transferred. So our patent portfolio is part-and-parcel of what the University does to transfer technology. The portfolio is a collection of individual patents, each within a tailored project plan. Every patent is destined to go to appropriate organisation which will use it effectively in the relevant business environment and be placed into those experienced hands in which it stands the best chance of success. Therefore the University's rationale for patenting is not the same as a company For example, we are often asked to state how many patents the University files because, the questioners say, it tells them how innovative the University is. But innovation is about so much more than patents. How good is a patent without an excellent entrepreneur or without access to a company's design skills, equipment and marketing clout to make an interesting idea an economically viable invention? Anyway, there is a whole range of innovative intellectual property and business engagement activities taking place at the University, from design and consulting through to long range collaborative research. Commonly this work doesn't lead directly to University patents, or any patents at all, but when they do it is the companies with whom we work that will deal with the patents, the University shares revenue but isn't the patent applicant. Last week I met with a very successful businessman who, having just sold his business, wanted to see what the University is currently promoting with a view to investing some of his hard earned capital. Whilst listening to him relate his success story, I thought I'd ask him the ' how many patents' question often asked of us. "Oh, no idea", was the reply. "Not many". "Periodically we would release pieces of our intellectual property freely into the market and then try and get people to collaborate and work with us and then we'd convert them into customers". The lesson for us to keep on learning is that business is very complex and operates in all sorts of integrated ways with myriad dimensions and connections. Patents are neither a universal nor a uniform aspect of business. They can be very important in some cases and irrelevant in others. Yet, press reports and intellectual property surveys like to talk about patent applicants as being in a 'global race', and suggest that if the laggards are to compete in the 'global economy', they need to shape up. To show us where everyone is in 'the race', league tables are frequently published. Latest tables show that our University has yet to make it into the various top ten patent lists. Of course, we take any observations seriously. However, if you try and make use of such league table information, it's difficult to boil it down to something specifically helpful. For a start, there's usually a bit of a muddle between macro-economic country level and microeconomic individual organisation comparisons. National research bodies can appear in the same table as individual companies and also universities. If you follow football results, you will realise why, as a West Ham United follower, especially working in Manchester, I'm not a fan of league tables! I don't quite believe that the team's position is a real reflection of its quality (it's rarely in the top 10 these days). Yet, in more objective moments, I have to accept that the club's standing in the table is a true statement of merit. It is based upon a simple and clear contest. 3