University IP Policy Template: A Modern Framework for Research Institutions
A comprehensive, downloadable IP policy template designed for universities and research institutions. Covers ownership, disclosure, commercialisation, revenue sharing, and modern blockchain timestamping — ready to adapt to your institution.
Key Takeaway
Most university IP policies were written before blockchain, AI, and modern commercialisation models existed. This template gives you a starting framework that covers traditional IP ownership rules alongside contemporary tools like blockchain timestamping — so your institution can protect research from lab to market.
In This Guide
1. Why Every University Needs a Clear IP Policy
Universities generate billions of pounds worth of intellectual property every year. Yet many institutions still operate with IP policies that were drafted decades ago — before open-access publishing, AI-generated inventions, and blockchain evidence existed.
A clear, modern IP policy prevents disputes between researchers, departments, and commercial partners. It sets expectations before work begins, not after a valuable invention creates competing claims.
The Cost of Unclear IP Policies
Whether you are a technology transfer office updating your framework, or a new institution building from scratch, a well-structured IP policy is the foundation of effective research commercialisation.
2. IP Policy Template: Core Sections
A robust university IP policy should cover seven core areas. Use this framework as your starting template, then adapt each section to your institution's specific needs.
Scope and Definitions
Define what counts as IP (inventions, software, datasets, designs, publications). Specify who is covered: staff, students, visiting researchers, and contractors.
Ownership Rules
Establish default ownership (typically the institution for staff, the student for student-created IP). Cover joint ownership, sponsored research, and collaborative projects.
Disclosure Obligations
When and how researchers must disclose potentially valuable IP to the TTO. Include timelines, forms, and the review process.
Commercialisation Pathways
Licensing, spinouts, and industry partnerships. Define how IP moves from the lab to the market, including decision-making authority and timelines.
Revenue Sharing
How income from commercialised IP is split between the inventor, department, and institution. Include thresholds, escalation tiers, and equity provisions for spinouts.
IP Protection Methods
Patents, trade secrets, blockchain timestamps, and copyright. When each is appropriate and who decides the protection strategy.
Dispute Resolution
How conflicts about ownership, revenue, or commercialisation decisions are resolved. Include mediation steps before formal proceedings.
3. IP Ownership Rules
Ownership is the most contested area of university IP policy. Getting it right prevents disputes that can delay research commercialisation by years.
Recommended Ownership Framework
IP created by employees during the course of employment belongs to the institution, consistent with UK law (Patents Act 1977, s.39).
Students retain ownership of IP they create unless a specific agreement (e.g., funded project, use of significant institutional resources) assigns it otherwise.
Joint ownership follows the collaboration agreement. Require IP ownership terms in every academic-industry partnership before work begins.
The funder may negotiate IP rights via the grant agreement. The policy should define default positions and what is negotiable.
The key principle: clarity before creation. Everyone involved in a research project should know who will own the IP before the first experiment runs.
4. Invention Disclosure Process
A disclosure policy only works if researchers actually follow it. The biggest failure in university IP management is not the policy itself — it is the gap between what the policy requires and what researchers do in practice.
Template Disclosure Process
Identify
Researcher identifies a potentially valuable invention, discovery, or innovation. Training should help researchers recognise what qualifies.
Timestamp Immediately
Before formal disclosure, timestamp the invention documentation on the blockchain. This creates instant proof of the invention date — critical for establishing priority and protecting against prior publication by competing groups.
Disclose to TTO
Submit the formal invention disclosure form to the technology transfer office. Include the blockchain timestamp certificate as evidence of the creation date.
TTO Assessment
TTO evaluates commercial potential within 30 days. Decides on protection strategy: patent, trade secret, blockchain-only, or release to inventor.
Protection and Commercialisation
Execute the chosen protection strategy. If the TTO declines to pursue, ownership may revert to the inventor (with the timestamp certificate confirming their creation date).
5. Commercialisation and Revenue Sharing
Revenue sharing is what motivates researchers to disclose and engage with the commercialisation process. Get it wrong, and your best inventors will keep their ideas quiet.
Sample Revenue Sharing Model
These are illustrative figures. Many Russell Group universities use similar tiered models. Adjust based on your institution's priorities.
For university spinout IP agreements, the policy should also define equity stakes, anti-dilution provisions, and the institution's role in governance.
6. Modern IP Tools: Blockchain Timestamping
Traditional IP policies only cover patents, copyright, and trade secrets. Modern universities need a fourth category: blockchain-verified timestamps — a fast, affordable way to establish proof of creation without the cost or disclosure requirements of patents.
Why Add Blockchain Timestamping to Your IP Policy
Instant Protection
Patents take 2-5 years. Blockchain timestamps take 60 seconds. Researchers can protect their work the moment it is created — critical when competing with other labs.
99.5% Cost Reduction
A UK patent costs £15,000-£30,000. A blockchain timestamp costs from £10. Universities can protect thousands of inventions for less than the cost of a single patent application.
No Disclosure Required
Patents require full public disclosure. Blockchain timestamps protect your work without revealing anything — preserving both trade secret rights and future patent options.
Court-Admissible Evidence
Blockchain timestamps are recognised as evidence in UK, EU, and US courts. The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce has confirmed the legal validity of blockchain-based records.
"We recommend that university IP policies explicitly include blockchain timestamping as a recognised form of IP protection, alongside patents and trade secrets. It fills the gap for early-stage research that is too premature for patent filing but too valuable to leave unprotected."
— immut advisory note for UK research institutions
7. Frequently Asked Questions
Who owns IP created by PhD students?
In most UK universities, students own their IP unless a specific agreement assigns it otherwise (e.g., funded studentships, use of significant institutional resources). Your policy should clearly state the default position and the exceptions.
What happens if a researcher publishes before disclosing to the TTO?
Publication can destroy patent rights (the 12-month grace period only applies in the US, not the UK or EU). This is why instant blockchain timestamping matters — researchers can protect research IP before publication in seconds, creating a safety net even before the formal disclosure process begins.
How should the policy handle AI-generated inventions?
This is an evolving area. Current UK law requires a human inventor for patent applications. Your policy should address: (a) who owns IP created with AI assistance, (b) disclosure obligations for AI-assisted work, and (c) alternative protection methods (like blockchain timestamps) for AI-generated outputs that cannot be patented.
Can blockchain timestamps replace patents in a university IP policy?
They complement rather than replace patents. Blockchain timestamps are ideal for early-stage protection, proof of creation dates, and inventions where patent costs are not justified. They also work as a bridge — protecting IP while the TTO evaluates whether to pursue a patent.
How do we handle IP from collaborative research with industry?
The policy should require IP ownership terms in every collaboration agreement before work begins. Common models include: institution owns background IP, joint ownership of foreground IP, and the industry partner gets a licence. Blockchain timestamps help by creating an independent record of what each party contributed and when.
Related Resources
Related Guides
Modernise Your University IP Policy
See how immut integrates with your existing IP policy to give researchers instant protection — from just £10 per timestamp.
We offer free consultations for universities — including a sample policy clause for blockchain timestamping
About immut: immut provides blockchain-based intellectual property protection for universities, researchers, and businesses. Our platform creates permanent, court-ready proof of creation in seconds — from just £10. Learn more at immut.io.