Written submission from The University of Manchester (MIP0027)

This note sets out the response of the University of Manchester to the call for evidence. Further detail on a specific detail of our Intellectual Property Strategy is given in our response to the Graphene Inquiry. We also support the evidence submitted collectively by the Russell Group which emphasises the high standing of UK universities in this activity, the vital importance of universities being able to apply tailored approaches to maximise national benefit from the intellectual property that they generate and the need for this activity to be properly resourced.

1. Categories of University-business interaction involving intellectual property

Intellectual property (IP) is relevant for universities in several ways and may be managed by different parts of the organisation. In particular commercialisation paths may be based on:

1. IP arising from research collaborations and commercialised by the industry collaborator; usually managed by a university research office.
2. Existing IP owned by the university and usually commercialised by the university, with investors and entrepreneurs, by technology licensing and spinning-out companies; usually managed by a university’s technology transfer office/team; and
3. Student enterprise activities, usually facilitated by a university’s business school and/or enterprise centre.

The approach to managing the relationships and relevant IP differs in each category depending on what are the goals of each party and what each contributes. There are no set formulae to deal with every situation, though of course universities share experiences and approaches in order to ensure that main issues are anticipated and opportunities optimised.

2. University of Manchester Performance Measurement

The University of Manchester is very experienced in all three categories being over many years one of the most active UK universities engaging with business and industry. Over the past two years we have been placed in first or second position in the value of research contracts from UK business and 4th overall. We also operate one of the most experienced technology transfer organisations, having had a formal IP policy and dedicated office since the late 1980s; and having a dedicated student enterprise centre since 2001. In ‘Manchester Entrepreneurs’ we have (jointly with Manchester Metropolitan University) one of the largest and most successful student enterprise societies in the UK. In 2015 it was awarded ‘Best Enterprise Society in the UK’ by the National Association of College and University Entrepreneurs.

We apply extensive key performance indicators (KPIs) and measurement to our technology transfer activities. Our top KPI relates to the economic contribution we make regionally and nationally. Other measures ensure sustainability of our technology transfer activity with all surpluses generated used to further research and further commercialisation. Since 2004, the University’s IP activities have led to a Gross Value Added contribution to the UK economy of over £225M and its spin-out companies have received over £350M of investment. We use this measure preferentially over counting the number of spin-outs as it is independent of any manipulation and represents the judgement of specialist private sector investors.

The University uses benchmarked and published deal data for both technology licensing and venture investments to inform its approach to research collaboration arrangements for arising IP; to royalty negotiations in licences; and for spin-out company investment transactions. Thus the University always makes proposals and concludes arrangements which are informed by market information relevant to each IP contract negotiation.

3. Key success factors

The University has a long held opinion (reflected in its IP policies over many years) that:

• research commercialisation is a long-term activity which requires typically some 5-15 years to go from invention disclosure to a wealth-generation opportunity. Thus the University takes a portfolio approach over a long business plan period to its IP endeavours.    This means that there is no undue expectation of, and hence no short-term pressure on, any one IP project/relationship;
• that there is a balance to be struck between looking for and backing projects that could make a financial return and selecting and supporting socially important inventions and so discretion is used to ensure that the University keeps this perspective in regard of its IP activities and that it always has a good mix of projects in its portfolio;
• to be successful in this field requires the active ‘upstream’ involvement of business people, entrepreneurs and investors in its work and to be open to feedback;

4. Open approach

In order to make its IP portfolio as “open for business” as is possible, the University publishes its technology for licence on its website and has a variety of digital platforms to market its opportunities which are available for taking a licence; as well as running an “Innovation Academy” for staff and students who wish to commercialise themselves; engaging in networking activity (such as being a member of the British Business Angels Association and the British Venture Capital Association and attending their events ) and setting up regular visits to the campus by industrial companies and investors (of all types and sizes) and by entrepreneurs.

5. Incentivisation of academic staff

The University recognises the need to incentivise and support academic staff and students to develop and commercialise IP.  The University has a generous reward sharing arrangement with employees, whereby, until some £4M of IP income is received in any one case, the majority of the IP income is received by the employee(s) and above that sum is 50:50.  Only when the University commits dedicated resources to (and/or invests in) a project, is it able to receive more.

6. Enterprise training

Recognising the need to embrace entrepreneurship amongst students, as well as extensive inclusion in the undergraduate curriculum, the University has included enterprise as part of doctoral training (e.g. with nanotechnology PhDs in the NOWnano programme).   Furthermore, it has introduced business plan competitions for all students, the winners of which have gone on to win national and international awards. In the area of graphene the Eli and Britt Harari £50K annual award in association with Nobel Prize winner, Sir Andre Geim has led to a succession of student spin-outs.

7. Benchmarking

The University carries out annual benchmarking of others’ practices and performance, often by personal visits.   This benchmarking is carried out in the context of two distinct groups: recognised international leaders and UK peer institutions

September 2016