The EIC has a budget of €10 billion for 2021-27 to support the development of cutting-edge technologies and their commercial exploitation. But some research and innovation groups have complained that its IP rules are “counterproductive” and “unworkable” because they give individual researchers indefinite rights to exploit IP they have contributed to developing, effectively enabling them to circumvent institutional interests.

On 3 May, the EIC board recommended changing the rules for some of the funder’s main instruments, to give institutions a greater role in commercialisation.

“I do expect the Commission to implement the EIC board’s recommendations on IP in the 2024 EIC work programme,” Mark Ferguson, chair of the EIC board, told Research Europe.

An official said the Commission would consider the board’s recommendations. These include that the broad definition of an ‘EIC Inventor’ to whom the rules apply—one of the problems raised by R&I groups—should be brought into line with international standards.

The board also said inventors’ host institutions “should be allowed a period to commit to supporting the protection and commercialisation of results” in exchange for a “proportionate” share of the returns.

Institutions own the IP generated by researchers they employ in most European countries, Ferguson (pictured) said, but the recommended changes to the EIC’s rules still require institutions to allow researchers to exploit their IP if the institution decides not to provide support.

“These recommendations essentially require the [technology transfer] office to quickly decide whether to help the researcher exploit their findings or not,” said Ferguson. He added that royalties or equity requested by institutions “should be reflective of the support and funding they provided”.

The size, experience and funding of tech transfer infrastructure varies across Europe, Ferguson pointed out. “The best tech transfer offices are staffed with competent, experienced individuals and are appropriately resourced,” he said, whereas others are not so fortunate.

The board said it would work with R&I groups to prepare guidance “on what ‘fair and proportionate’ terms may be”.

Research groups welcomed having their concerns taken into account. Julien Chicot from the Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities said it was “very positive” that the EIC board recognised the “vital role of knowledge valorisation offices”. 

“The implementation of these recommendations will nevertheless determine how effective they are in addressing the concerns we highlighted,” Chicot said, adding that “the devil is in the details” on issues such as the returns to institutions.