Acknowledging the diversity of opinions, incentives and approaches that the preceding stakeholder-specific views offer, here are general themes that have emerged throughout the consultations:

Issue: Accountability

While organizations cannot be held to account for mandates that were not clearly articulated, the consultation process makes clear that more must be done to ensure that all participants in Ontario’s innovation system prioritize the development of IP capacity, programming and related activities and expertise if they are to yield economic outcomes for the province.

Issue: Education

We heard a call across all stakeholder groups for improved education with respect to IP. This includes IP education for TTO staff, employees in support intermediaries, students, entrepreneurs, directors and advisors. Whether designed for faculty, students or industry partners, increasing IP literacy through the development of curriculum and modules that can be easily accessed regardless of location, funding or internal capacity is in strong demand.

Issue: IP expertise

We heard that a lack of dedicated IP expertise and capacity across Ontario’s innovation system is common and leaves many organizations with little choice but to either discourage active IP generation or direct entrepreneurs to use external legal counsel. Regional and institutional differences related to access to expertise, and a more foundational lack of IP literacy as it relates to what type of expertise is required, significantly hinders Ontario’s commercialization potential.

Issue: Funding and resources

As a result of a lack of direct funding and resources for IP commercialization and protection, the knowledge created on Ontario campuses is often left on academic shelves or licensed and/or sold at a development stage that significantly limits the returns to Ontario’s economy. Increasing the availability of funding and resources to de-risk the further development of early stage innovations through proof-of-concept/prototype development would allow institutions enhanced leverage in their negotiation with industry partners.

The transfer of technology from higher education institutions and higher education-related institutions to industry ... in Germany …[with] the Fraunhofer Gesellschaft, which is particularly dedicated to practice-oriented research…with its 72 institutes has a central exploitation department in Munich, which administers and manages patent applications and exploitations as well as contracts. The working group at the Federal Ministry of Economics is currently discussing ...as to whether a separate legal personality should be created for research co-operations.
Source: Overview of Technology Transfer in Germany, pages 134-136. June 15, 2019. Christian Czychowski.

Issue: Structure

There is significant demand amongst smaller and less geographically accessible stakeholders to have access to centralized IP support and IP related resources. While in-person interaction remains core for all institutions, the roles and responsibilities of institutions with respect to IP related tasks (for example, invention disclosure, patent searches, industry-matchmaking and the servicing of orphaned IP) could be more effectively delineated through a centralized resource to ensure that those who require support can receive it, and that such support is consistent across the system.

The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) is one entity that is drilling the value of intellectual property into the minds of local SMEs.“In a future economy driven by innovation and digitalisation, it is important to help our SMEs rethink and reshape their business models so that they can use their intangible assets to grow,” explains Daren Tang, chief executive of IPOS. The office has introduced a number of initiatives and arrangements, such as patent-acceleration programmes, to help smaller businesses scale up through the commercialisation of intellectual property. IPOS’s outreach has gained traction, with almost 700 individuals and companies using its complimentary (sic) IP business and legal clinics to seek preliminary legal advice. “Growth rates for IP filings in Singapore in the last decade have generally been above our GDP,” explains Tang. “Between 2014 and 2018 total IP applications in Singapore grew by a compound annual growth rate of 5.4%.
— Kurt Brasch, IAM Media

In thinking about, discussing and debating the themes identified above, we were guided by this question: how can Ontarians benefit from IP generated by government funded research? The recommendations in the following section are our attempt at moving this discussion forward. We hope that all stakeholders will continue making efforts to develop an in-depth understanding of how IP generated at postsecondary institutions and other provincial research institutes can benefit all Ontarians.