1. Charter for IP & Technology Transfer
FITT
(Fostering Interregional Exchange in ICT Technology Transfer)
www.FITT-for-Innovation.eu

2. The Intellectual Property Charter of the
Carnot Institutes in a few words
 Harmonised set of principles for Intellectual Property and Knowledge Transfer
 Adopted in 2008 by the Carnot Institutes, French label and network of 33
research laboratories/organizations active in partnership research with
companies
 Close links with a similar initiative at EU level
 Supported by the FITT partners
Partner Logo
2 | 05.01.2009
28.03.2010 CharterName / & Technology Transfer
for IP Event

3. The Content
 Structured in 3 parts:
 Policy relating to Intellectual Property (IP)
 Knowledge and Technology Transfer Policy (KTT)
 Principles concerning collaboration and research contracts
 23 articles
 Adopted by the representatives of the 33 Carnot institutes
 Validated by all their supervisory organizations (“organismes de tutelles”)
Partner Logo
3 | 05.01.2009
28.03.2010 CharterName / & Technology Transfer
for IP Event

4. The Content
Partner Logo
4 | 05.01.2009
25.09.2009 Name / Event
Intellectual Property Charter

5. The (Hi)Story of the Charter
 2 months to draft the charter, 6 months for adoption by every Carnot Institutes
 Part of wider, global European context
* European Association of Research and Technology Organisations
**Commission Recommendation on the Management of Intellectual Property in Knowledge Transfer Activities and Code of Practice for universities and
other public research organisations C(2008)1329
Partner Logo
5 | 05.01.2009
28.03.2010 CharterName / & Technology Transfer
for IP Event

6. Stakeholders
Who was involved in the redaction of the Charter?
The Best Practices Committee of the Carnot Institutes Association gathers
several thematic working groups, with the objective to exchange and produce
recommendations to harmonize the practices between the institutes.
One of the working groups launched the work on the IP charter. One writer was
in charge of the redaction, based on the discussion of the reduced working
group (less than10 persons, mostly jurists and technology transfer managers)
and iterations with the board of directors and other recipients for comments.
Partner Logo
6 | 05.01.2009
28.03.2010 CharterName / & Technology Transfer
for IP Event

7. Stakeholders
Who is concerned by the Charter?
- In France,13 000 public research professionals are concerned:
- 12% of public research staff
- 45% of the research with industry
- Potentially, 130 Research & Technical Organisations (RTOs) in Europe
Partner Logo
7 | 05.01.2009
28.03.2010 CharterName / & Technology Transfer
for IP Event

8. PROs & CONs
PROs CONs
 A common language
 Image of professionalism towards external  Validation process and signature often long
partners
 When drafting the charter, one must
 Recommendations : no legally-binding conciliate the need to be as precise and
content concrete as possible and the difficulty to
comply with the different legal status and
 Easy to be adopted as such but it can also
functioning of the organizations.
be adapted according to their needs of other
research organisations
 Reinforcement the cohesion of the Carnot
network
 Tool for harmonisation of practices at EU
level
Partner Logo
8 | 05.01.2009
28.03.2010 CharterName / & Technology Transfer
for IP Event

9. Why ?
 Context in which the Charter was developed:
Mix of political & structural drivers:
- Structural: one objective of the Carnot Institutes is to improve the institutes' professionalism and to homogenize
the practices between them.
- Political: in line with European and national recommendations to put technology transfer as primary mission for
the public research organisations and encourage them to establish policies and procedures with regards to
Intellectual Property.
 For which ‘problem’ was it as solution?
By adopting such a Charter, the Carnot Institutes meet the expectations of companies, which call for a coherent
framework between the French PROs and clear guidelines concerning partnership research.
By developing its own text (next to the one that was in preparation by the European Commission), the Charter was
more fitted to the Carnot context and could amend some parts of the European text that were deemed
unsatisfactory.
 Describe why this was a ‘problem’?
The art. 17 of the EU’s Recommendations on management of IP in knowledge transfer activities issued in April 2008
foresees that foreground IP in partnership research is owned by the private-sector party. EARTO declared that
while this text was based on a draft they submitted to the Commission, this part was unacceptable for research &
technology organisations (from activity report 2007-2008) .
Partner Logo
9 | 05.01.2009
28.03.2010 CharterName / & Technology Transfer
for IP Event

10. Impact
• Was this approach successful? Yes, very
• What evidence do you have?
• Quick adoption of the charter by 33 Carnot Institutes and their supervisory organizations (representing all major
PROs in France) proves the initial need for a reference document.
• Digiteo has also adopted the charter and other PROs are strongly considering to adopt/adapt it.
• Industrials have expressed their support to the initiative during the elaboration of the document.
• Why do you recommend this approach?
Absolutely. It is of the utmost importance to have coherent frameworks, policies and practices between European PROs,
as expressed by the European Commission. This will promote transnational cooperation and improve global
competitiveness.
• How will this experience change your performance (in other modules, jobs, etc.) in the future?
The implementation of the principles set out in the Charter will lead to significant changes in the organization and
functioning of the PROs in terms of research traceability, awareness actions on technology transfer, evaluation of the
researchers’ career, licensing...
Partner Logo
10 | 05.01.2009
28.03.2010 CharterName / & Technology Transfer
for IP Event

11. Outcome
 What happened after the implementation:
• “mass effect” of the Carnot Institutes (13 000 researchers) + adoption of shared
guidelines on IP = credibility of the network
• Reference document that stresses the value of IP coming from public research. Brings
legitimacy to jurists and technology transfer officers during negotiations with industrials:
no more “sell off” of IP.
• Positive feedbacks from companies , which appreciate the shortening of the
negotiations and lower discrepancy between the habits of PROs.
• Increased awareness about the stakes of IP among the institute’s staff.
• Enhanced feeling of integration of the Carnot network
Partner Logo
11 | 05.01.2009
28.03.2010 CharterName / & Technology Transfer
for IP Event

12. Outcome
 Plans for the future?
• Will the Charter be continued/changed/adapted (and in what way)?
Quite new, so no plan for changing the content at the moment.
The charter has been translated in english and some actions are ongoing for the
dissemination on national level and EU level (European associations in the field of
technology transfer).
Partner Logo
12 | 05.01.2009
28.03.2010 CharterName / & Technology Transfer
for IP Event

13. Lessons Learned
 Looking back now, what would you recommend to others?
• A small working group and one writer has proved to be an effective way of
working.
• Pragmatic approach during discussions about the text between the
institutions : emphasis on the common interest.
• Involve decisions-making people from the start, to ensure a quick adoption
later on.
Partner Logo
13 | 05.01.2009
28.03.2010 CharterName / & Technology Transfer
for IP Event

14. Suggested Readings
 Link to code book
Intellectual property
Knowledge Transfer
Technology Transfer
Responsible Partnering
Research contracts
Exploitation
 Link to relevant websites
 Website of the Carnot Institutes association : http://www.instituts-carnot.eu/en
See here for full text of the Charter (EN) http://www.instituts-carnot.eu/en/node/440
 Commission Recommendation on the management of intellectual property in
knowledge transfer activities And Code of Practice for universities and other public
research organisations C(2008)1329 http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-
research/pdf/ip_recommendation_fr.pdf
Partner Logo
14 | 05.01.2009
28.03.2010 CharterName / & Technology Transfer
for IP Event