The document provides a detailed review and commentary of the UK Intellectual Property Office's guide "Intellectual Asset Management for Universities". The summary reviews the key points of the document, including: 1) It summarizes the scope and rationale of the UK IPO guide, which aims to help universities optimize benefits from intellectual assets and develop customized IP strategies. 2) It outlines a 10-step roadmap for developing an effective IP strategy based on recommendations from the UK IPO guide. 3) It notes the UK IPO guide emphasizes the need for individualized IP policies that align with each university's unique mission and business model, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

1. ~ 1 ~
“Intellectual Asset Management for Universities”
by UK IPO, 2011
Review and Critical Commentary
by Mehmet Artemel, Bogazici University, Istanbul
Reviewer’s notes:
 The following review was first published at IPso
Jure - intellectual property blog (http://ipso-
jure.blogspot.com) on Monday, 15
th
August 2011
(http://ipso-
jure.blogspot.com.tr/2011/08/intellectual-asset-
management-for.html)
 The review was subsequently reported by The IP
Kat
(http://ipkitten.blogspot.com.tr/2011/08/wednesda
y-whimsies_17.html) as follows:
“The IPKat's Turkish friend and scholar,
Mehmet Artemel, has given a pretty
thorough review of the UK Intellectual
Property Office's recent "Intellectual
Asset Management for Universities” on
Peter Groves' Ipso Jure weblog here”
**********

2. ~ 2 ~
“Intellectual Asset Management for Universities”:
by UK IPO
Published in May 2011, the new guide by the UK
Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has been produced by a
committee of representatives from PraxisUnico, the
Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE),
Universities UK, the Association for University Research
and Industry Links (AURIL), the Biotechnology and
Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), and the
Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS)
under the chairmanship of IPO.

3. ~ 3 ~
The Guide comprises 45 pages in total including five
chapters and three annexes. The length of each chapter
ranges between 3 to 7 pages i.e. chapters 1 and 3, and
chapter 4, respectively. As it has already been noted by
Professor Jeremy Phillips, the Guide is “… well written
and clearly presented; some technical stuff, such as the
explanation of the different Lambert agreements, is left to
the annexes” (see IP finance, Universities and intellectual
asset management: a guide, Monday, 23 May 2011,
available at
http://ipfinance.blogspot.com/2011/05/universities-and-
intellectual-asset.html).
Essential IP terms and knowledge/technology transfer
related expressions are explained throughout the Guide,
as they arise, in a plain and straightforward language.
The Guide is, indeed, so readable that there may exist a
fair chance of overlooking some of the valuable practical
advice that is recommended as well as the highlighted
potential pitfalls that exist along the path of developing
and implementing a successful IP strategy for
universities. Likewise, much of the less prominent but
equally significant, ancillary issues that are mentioned in
the Guide within the context of intellectual asset
management policies at universities risk escaping the
reader’s attention. It may, therefore, not be such a bad
idea, for those who are truly interested in the subject, to
prepare their own checklists where relevant. Talking
about checklists, there is a set of self-reminder questions
at the end of each chapter that are listed inside a box that
is superimposed on a photograph. Readers, it is
suggested, might be advised to prepare their own
checklists instead of confining themselves to the series of
questions (and one checklist proper, at the end of
chapter 3) that are provided in the Guide.

4. ~ 4 ~
The scope of the Guide
The Guide does not set out to “provide an IP strategy that
can be applied across all institutions” (Executive
Summary, p. 2; Chapter 1, p. 9) nor contend to be a
definitive or comprehensive tool for the management of
IP. Quite to the contrary, an admission, which is almost
reminiscent of a disclaimer, reads as follows:
“... this Guide is concerned with the
management of IP in a narrow sense.” (Chapter
5, p. 29)
As is stated in the Executive Summary, the Guide is
written with primarily senior administrators in higher
education and research institutions in mind:
“This Guide is for vice-chancellors, senior
decision makers and senior managers in
universities and is intended to help them set
strategies to optimise the benefits from the
intellectual assets created by their staff and
students.” (Executive Summary, p. 2)
Presumably, with this audience in mind, and indeed on
account of the nature of the subject, management related
terminology dominates the language of the text. Equally,
definitions of intellectual property related terms which are
provided throughout the text are indicative of the fact that
the Guide does not, rightly so, assume that all readers
should necessarily be conversant with IP terminology.
As T. S. Eliot puts it, “last year’s words belong to last
year’s language” and hence, therefore, the stress on
‘knowledge transfer’ as opposed to ‘technology transfer’
prevails; perhaps, not surprising considering that IP
commercialisation has tended to become invariably
associated with ‘technology transfer’ and by extension
with ‘hard IP’ or patents, which in the past might have
had the undesired effect that led academics in certain

5. ~ 5 ~
disciplines to be under the impression that their
contribution to the academe was deemed less significant.
This may be interpreted as another sign of the Guide’s
all-embracing approach to welcoming IP related
contributions that may derive from diverse disciplines in
academia as is revealed from the following:
“Firstly, it should be apparent that IP is not
merely that which is formally protected for
example by patents. Indeed the majority holding
of a university’s IP is likely to be in teaching
materials, software and output works such as
literature or film or sound in the case of arts
centred-[sic] universities.” (Chapter 4, p. 23)
The predominant use of the term “knowledge transfer” or
“knowledge exchange” in the Guide accords, moreover,
with the nomenclature in the European Commission
Recommendation of 2008, on “The management of
intellectual property in knowledge transfer activities and
Code of Practice for universities and other public
research organisations” (provided conveniently under
Annex A of the Guide) where there are 37 references to
“knowledge transfer” and only a single mention of the
term “technology transfer”.
The rationale for the new Guide
The Lambert Tool Kit (1
st
edition, 2005; 2
nd
edition, 2008)
and the European Commission Recommendation C
(2008) 1329 referred to above, are reported in the Guide
as “the two major advancements” that have taken place
in relation to the management of IP since the publication
of the IPO’s original Guide in 2003. (Chapter 4, p. 21)
The guide is written in response to certain changes that
have been observed in the field of knowledge transfer
over the last decade, which are identified in the report as
follows:

6. ~ 6 ~
 There have been many changes in the world of
IP commercialisation and in the context in which
it is undertaken (Chapter 1, p. 8)
 Developments in innovation theory; the growth of
the “open innovation” paradigm; evolution of
‘mass collaboration’ and ‘user-generated’
innovation that is facilitated by new social media
tools; the growth in value of non-IP business
assets such as business models (Chapter 1, p.
8)
 The need for universities to recognise that that
the purpose of the IP created by them is “to
create wider social and economic benefit, and
not only revenue generation” (Chapter 1, p. 9)
 The change “in the role of the knowledge transfer
office which no longer focuses only on an
intellectual property professional service” but has
“a broader role in the innovation system”
(Chapter 1, p. 9)
In sum, as the Guide puts it:
“These changes have forced new reflections
on the content of the Guide, particularly as IP
commercialisation has become more complex.
Each institution needs clear objectives in its IP
strategy, and this Guide aims to demonstrate
how these objectives should be developed within
an individual institution in order to gain the
maximum overall benefit from its IP.” (Chapter 1,
p. 9; emphasis supplied)
The comparators for the Guide in its assessment of the
changes that have occurred over time are the findings
and observations made in its own former guide that was
published in 2003. Perplexingly, unlike other reports that
have been mentioned in the text for which

7. ~ 7 ~
comprehensive references and links are provided, the
new Guide appears to be resolute in not supplying a full
reference to the original guide anywhere in the report,
save for furtive allusions as follows: “Since the first IPO
Guide in 2003 ...” (Foreword, p. 1); “The first edition of
this Guide was published in 2003 ...” (Chapter 1, p. 8);
“When the previous Guide was written ...” (Chapter 2, p.
15); “... since the original edition of this booklet was
published in 2003” (Chapter 4, p. 21).
“The Purpose of this Guide”
The above title, which happens to be the very first
subheading under Chapter 1, may conveniently serve as
a useful section heading for the purposes of this review,
to identify the objectives which the Guide has set itself.
The Guide is written with a view to (emphasis supplied):
 “... assist in the generation of IP policies
that allow each institution to seize the
opportunity and meet the responsibility to use
their IP to secure maximum benefit for the
economy and society” (Foreword, p. 1)
 “... help senior university managers set
strategies to optimise the benefits from the
intellectual assets created by their staff and
students” (Chapter 1, p. 7)
 “... assist institutions to develop an
intellectual property strategy that is
consistent with their wider policy framework,
their organisation, and their contribution to
the economy and society” (Chapter 1, p. 7)
 “... demonstrate how these objectives
should be developed within an individual
institution in order to gain the maximum
overall benefit from its IP” (Chapter 1, p. 9)
 “... demonstrate how the maximum value
can be gained from IP...” (Chapter 1, p. 9)
 “... assist in the design of internal
measures and systems” (Chapter 5, p. 29)

8. ~ 8 ~
The Role of Universities
The Guide, as will be seen from the above section, does
not shy away from laying down certain responsibilities for
universities unequivocally which it sees as fundamental
for the benefit of the economy and society at large.
Accordingly, universities are expected to:
 Act as “stewards of ... knowledge for all”, and
consequently “to find ways to use this
remarkable knowledge pool ever more
creatively” (Chapter 2, p. 11)
 Ensure “that IP in the UK is used to best
effect for innovation and growth”, in their
capacity as “key players in [the] economy”
(Chapter 4, p. 21)
 Use for public benefit the IP that they
generate, based on “the overriding principle
of a universities’ [sic] charitable status”
(Chapter 4, p. 21)
An “individual business model”
The sensitive tone of the Guide would seem to transpire
through the careful choice of the language adopted in the
text. Cognizant of underlying tensions that may exist in
different academic institutions vis-à-vis commercialisation
of IP, the Guide is keen to draw a distinction between
“individual” (Chapter 1, p. 9) business models that are
“consistent with the institutional structure” (Executive
Summary, page 3) as opposed to a uniform “IP strategy
that can be applied across all institutions” (Executive
Summary, p. 2).
It is stressed again and again throughout the text that the
recommendations in the Guide are not intended to act as
a blueprint that is to be adopted blindly by all universities
in a uniform manner. This is one of the points on which
the Guide deserves to be given full credit for. The
expertise and inclination for which different universities
might have become associated with is recognised as a

9. ~ 9 ~
starting point and accordingly the corresponding need to
develop appropriate customised strategies that accord
with each institution’s mission is acknowledged. This is
expressed succinctly in the Executive Summary at page
3 in the following words:
“This Guide illustrates the need for universities to
look at their IP policies in relation to their
individual business models.” (emphasis
supplied)
The Guide frequently reminds readers of this premise, in
every single chapter (see Executive Summary at pp. 2
and 3; in Chapter 1 at p. 9; in Chapter 2 at p. 12; in
Chapter 3 at p. 17; in Chapter 4 at p. 22; and in Chapter
5 at p. 31) that deals with another facet of intellectual
asset management, by repeating that “there is no ‘one
size fits all’ approach to IP management”. (Chapter 1, p.
9)
Common ‘areas’ for all universities
According to the Guide, notwithstanding the requirement
for a customised IP policy that is in tandem with each
university’s “own individual mission, those areas where
policies are needed are the same for all” (Executive
Summary, p. 3). Areas that are identified in common
irrespective of the differences that may exist between
universities are such as the right to ownership of IP by
staff or students (Ibid).
A roadmap for developing an effective IP strategy
At the risk of missing out some of the valuable
information that is stacked under some subheadings in
the Guide, it might, nonetheless, prove a useful exercise
to attempt to sketch out a roadmap that follows the steps,
as recommended in the Guide, to be taken for the
development and implementation of an IP strategy in
respect of those areas that are common to all
universities.

10. ~ 10 ~
The different stages in the shaping of an IP policy as well
as the recommendations and cautions that are provided
in the text have been either paraphrased or quoted as far
as space would allow for the purposes of this review.
References are given for further details in the Guide. The
fact that the number of steps, as determined by the
reviewer, happens to be the same as the total number of
the chapters in the Guide is purely coincidental, and
should not, therefore, confuse the reader.
STEP 1
Each institution must establish its own goals
in line with its mission (Chapter 1, p.7; Chapter
2, pp. 11, 12, 15, 16; Chapter 4, p. 21; Chapter 5,
p. 32)
Caution: A “one size fits all approach” will not
work (Executive Summary, pp. 2-3; Chapter 1, p.
9; Chapter 2, p. 12; Chapter 3, p. 17; Chapter 4,
p. 22; Chapter 5, p. 31)
Example quoted from the Guide:
“A university IP policy should reflect the mission
of the institution. Whilst the mission of the
University of the Arts London, for example, will
differ significantly from that of Imperial College
London, their IP policies will have some elements
in common but will also have differences.”
(Chapter 3, p. 17)
STEP 2
 Each university must determine its own
business model (Executive Summary, pp.2-
3; Chapter 1, p.9; Chapter 2, pp.11, 12, 15;
Chapter 3, p. 17)
 The IP policy must follow the business
model of the university Chapter 3, p. 17)
Caution: Each university’s IP strategy will differ
according to its overall business model
(Executive Summary, p. 3, Chapter 2, p.11)

11. ~ 11 ~
2.1 Each university must consider the “three
main roles for IP in the university business
model”, as listed below under 2.1.1 – 2.1.3
(Executive Summary, p. 2; Chapter 2, p. 11)
2.1.1 Role 1: Ensure that ‘freedom to operate’ is
maintained (Executive Summary, pp. 2-3;
Chapter 2, pp. 11-12; Chapter 4, p. 27)
Caution: Parties (i.e. university and industry)
must discuss and identify specific issues instead
of seeking a quick solution (Chapter 2, p. 12)
2.1.2 Role 2: Ensure that teaching models and
research results are protected (Executive
Summary, p. 2; Chapter 1, p. 7; Chapter 2, pp.
11-13; Chapter 4, pp. 22-23)
Caution: University must be careful to protect its
‘background IP’ (Chapter 4, p. 23)
2.1.3 Role 3: Do not overlook IP that might
generate revenues (Chapter 2, p. 13-14)
Caution: University must not set unrealistic
expectations to profit from IPRs (Chapter 2, p.
14)
STEP 3
IP policy should be focused on three areas in
particular, as listed below under 3.1 – 3.3
(Chapter 1, p. 7)
3.1 Area 1: Internal rules (e.g. disclosure,
confidentiality, and ownership of IP) (Chapter
3, p. 17)
Caution: Excessive fragmentation of IP
ownership should be avoided (Chapter 3, p. 18)
3.2 Area 2: A policy for IP contracts (i.e.
collaboration agreements and research
contracts); in drafting a policy three key
issues must be borne in mind, as listed below

12. ~ 12 ~
under 3.2.1 – 3.2.3 (Executive Summary, p. 3;
Chapter 4, p. 21)
3.2.1 Issue 1: Distinguish between ownership and
access rights (Executive Summary, p. 3,
Chapter 2, pp. 12-13; Chapter 4, pp. 21, 23)
Caution: The rights of access in terms of both
present and future potential uses (Chapter 4, pp.
23, 25)
3.2.2 Issue 2: Bear in mind the charitable status of
universities and the consequences of
commercialisation (Executive Summary, p. 3;
Chapter 1, p. 9; Chapter 2, pp. 13, 16; Chapter 4,
p. 21)
Caution: IP that results from university research
is ultimately “a charitable asset to be used for
public benefit”; commercialisation of IP will not by
itself mean that “the public use obligation has
been fulfilled” (Chapter 1, p. 9; Chapter 4, p. 21)
3.2.3 Issue 3: Uphold ethical standards (Executive
Summary, p. 3; Chapter 4, p. 21)
3.3 Area 3: A knowledge exchange policy that
lays down a framework for commercialisation
and the sharing of financial returns from
knowledge transfer activities (Chapter 1, p. 7)
Caution:
 Negotiate IP agreements on a case by case
basis (Executive Summary, p. 3); in this
context, the Guide recommends the use of
The Lambert Tool Kit, which is aimed at
“increasing the flow of IP from universities to
business” and which represents “a
consensus bargain between industry and
academia” (Executive Summary, p. 3;
Chapter 4, p. 21; see in particular Chapter 4
and Annex A for details of the Lambert
system and the Lambert Model Agreements)

13. ~ 13 ~
 Be aware of the advantages and
disadvantages of alternative forms of
commercialisation and determine the type of
exploitation, which would be most suitable for
the IP (Chapter 3, p. 19)
 Retain a right to ‘the research exception’
(Chapter 4, p. 28)
 Beware of the temptation to overvalue
contributions to a project when negotiating
over shares of potential revenues; the Guide
notes, that “There are signs that this is a
growing problem in some areas of university-
business technology transfer” (Chapter 4, p.
27)
 Do not be pre-occupied with the anticipated
value of IP which can stall negotiations at an
early stage (Chapter 4, p. 22)
 Be careful about the extent of access allowed
to background IP (Chapter 4, p. 23)
 Avoid joint ownership of IP (Chapter 4, p. 23)
STEP 4
(Note that ‘STEP 4’ does not correspond to Chapter 4 of
the Guide but is the 4
th
stage as identified by the review)
Each university must implement its IP policy
across its own subject mix (Chapter 3, p. 17)
Caution: Conflicts may result from IP-related
activities “when parts of an institution evolve
separately” (Chapter 2, p. 15)
STEP 5
Universities should monitor and evaluate
their IP policies (Chapter 5)
Caution:
 Separate evaluation frameworks for revenue
and costs should be used (Chapter 5, p. 30)
 Each university should identify those
indicators that are in line with its objectives
(Chapter 5, p. 32)

14. ~ 14 ~
5.1 The use of performance indicators has two
advantages, as listed below under 5.1.1 –
5.1.2 (Chapter 5, p. 29)
Caution:
 Research expenditure to output (e.g. patents
and licence revenue) ratios should be used
with caution (Chapter 5, p. 30)
 Where indicators, such as disclosures, patent
applications, and patents granted, are to be
used as a benchmark for the commercial
applicability of research outputs, it would be
advisable to evaluate such indicators over a
longer period of time (Chapter 5, p. 30)
5.1.1 Advantage 1: Proof of a university’s
capability to manage IP effectively (Chapter 5,
p. 29)
Caution: The Guide notes that “one of the
reasons some sponsors give for seeking to retain
ownership of IP is that they lack confidence in the
ability of universities to manage the IP” (Chapter
5, p. 29)
5.1.2 Advantage 2: Tools to assist in identifying
“problems and opportunities relating to IP
management and to modify budgets and
strategies accordingly” (Chapter 5, p. 29)
Caution: When making resource/funding
allocation decisions, ratios should be interpreted
and used with caution (Chapter 5, p. 30)
Concluding remarks
As will be seen from the above outline, the wealth of
information that is supplied in the Guide is such as to
render the presentation of a more condensed summary
almost impossible. This does not come as a surprise,
since with the exception of a number of, deliberately
repetitive reminders scattered throughout, there appears
to be hardly any detail, which could be considered

15. ~ 15 ~
redundant in the text. The Guide should serve as a very
useful reference source for university managers and
administrators in the UK as well as in other countries,
provided that differences which may exist in legal
regimes for IP management in universities, such as
‘professor’s privilege’ are kept in mind.