Our engagement strategy yielded over 250 responses and in-person contributions related to the topic of IP generation, protection and commercialization in Ontario. This dialogue, both online and in-person, has proven to be an exceptional asset for our work and for the development of concrete recommendations toward an IP framework for Ontario.

The process yielded a series of key themes presented by respondent type, and where appropriate, by region. These themes are presented by respondent type, and where appropriate, by region.

Respondent Group: University Technology Transfer Offices

Issue: IP ownership

Ontario’s postsecondary IP environment is contextualized by the diversity of approaches that universities take with respect to the ownership of IP. These approaches range from strict institution-owned models to inventor-owned models, and hybrid models where ownership of IP is shared between stakeholders. We heard that the absence of a standardized model creates obstacles for industry engagement, where some industry partners may come to the table with different expectations based on engagement with other institutions. This potential benefit of a standardized approach was, however, near-unanimously seen by universities as outweighed by the need for flexibility with respect to faculty collective agreements and institution and departmental talent attraction and talent retention needs.

Issue: IP expertise and capacity

As is the case with varied IP ownership policies, the issue of access to IP related expertise and capacity differed greatly amongst institutions. Larger, more science and technology focused institutions, and generally those in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), voiced a general satisfaction with their internal resources and capabilities related to intellectual property. In smaller institutions, particularly universities outside of the GTA, we heard significant concerns related to their access to IP expertise, both in-house and through third party IP legal experts. This concern was most prominent amongst northern universities where external IP expertise in the community is limited or unavailable. This gap in access is a barrier that creates significant challenges for both the TTOs and the inventor it seeks to support.

Issue: Funding

We heard repeatedly the impact of reduced budgets for TTOs and often limited, or unavailable, funding for IP commercialization and patenting. While some stakeholders believe that this forces an increase in the quality of patents applied for, most argued that without adequate funding, significant potential for commercialization remains on university shelves or ends up licensed to industry partners at a pre-development stage and thus with limited negotiating leverage.

Issue: Education

No single issue received as much universal support as the topic of increased education for IP and commercialization on Ontario campuses. While many participating universities noted existing programs for IP knowledge for both faculty and students, we heard a continuous demand for standardized IP related education, an idea that was underscored across the university stakeholder set. Such education would include IP literacy for faculty, researchers, graduate students and undergraduate students.

Issue: Industry receptors

Of the most passionate conversations amongst participants was the issue of industry engagement in the commercialization of intellectual property. Two views emerged strongly from the in-person consultations: we heard from many participants about the lack of domestic industry receptors for postsecondary knowledge while other participants argued that more could be done to engage local SMEs and start-ups in their knowledge-creation processes and in matching the needs of industry with the work of university researchers and knowledge creators.

While available data supports the view that colleges have a well-established local or regional industry network, the same cannot be said across universities. Here, the sophistication of larger, often multinational companies, allows these parties easier access to university-created IP. We heard strong positive views in support of developing stronger local or regional partnerships amongst universities and local start-ups and SMEs.* But, the issue of funding was again raised as a potential barrier to transactions between universities and local/regional partners.

*For the purposes of consistency, we have answered the question of what an Ontario or Canadian company is and, our working definition is a company whose corporate headquarters are in Ontario or Canada.

Respondent Group: College Technology Transfer/Industry Liaison Offices

Issue: IP ownership

In contrast to the diversity of approaches to IP on university campuses, colleges are near-unanimous in their hands-off approach to intellectual property. We heard from participants that their interaction with IP is generally through relationships and contracted research with industry partners. The standardized approach for Ontario colleges is for all IP either created or improved upon through the college-partner relationship to rest with the industry partner. As one participant noted:

[the] main reason colleges do applied research is to contribute to community economic development, not for patenting/IP ownership… We have a dedicated business development role; whose role is to be out there in the community.

We heard several colleges note the potential risk to those community economic development efforts should they attempt to negotiate partial IP rights.

Issue: IP expertise and capacity

Both the questionnaire responses from the colleges and the in-person consultations surfaced a generalized lack of IP related expertise and capacity on campus. This was not a surprise given the aforementioned treatment of IP with industry partners. However, several college participants noted that as student and sometimes faculty entrepreneurship become more sophisticated, the need for internal resources related to IP has increased. Similarly, given the strong engagement colleges have with industry partners, a role for colleges in the transmission of IP knowledge to these partners was raised as a potential evolution of their roles. Doing so, however, requires either on-campus – or networked – access to IP expertise.

Issue: Education

While college participants noted a third-party status when it comes to the generation and treatment of IP, we heard in the in-person consultations of the strong opportunities to improve access to IP-related education for both on-campus students and faculty, as well as local and regional industry partners. Given the volume of college-industry partnerships present across the province, there exists a significant opportunity to leverage these interactions to help build the capacity of local industry partners through the transmission of IP-related education. Stakeholders from participating colleges expressed interest in exploring this role.

Respondent Group: Regional Innovation Centres (RICs) and related innovation intermediaries

Issue: IP expertise and capacity

Both in-person consultations and questionnaire responses received from participating organizations, identified the significant lack of IP relevant expertise in the management ranks at Ontario Regional Innovation Centres and related support intermediaries. Across this stakeholder group, this gap in expertise is mitigated through referral to third-party legal services. While participants noted that this model allows for an adequate level of support to be provided, the IP needs of growing firms very quickly exhaust what is provided at subsidized levels.

Issue: Education

While the majority of this stakeholder group noted that they offer educational seminars on IP-related topics, usually held in partnership with legal firms, responses also indicated a significant lack of both internal and external IP resources in the form of operational staff, mentors and advisors to properly support the commercialization needs of emerging firms. These unmet needs include overall IP strategy, managing IP in contracts, managing confidentiality, and engaging external experts.

As with colleges, while a referral model works in certain cases, the lack of in-house expertise significantly restricts the amount of both formal and informal IP-related education that can be conveyed to participating companies.

In addition, we heard from participants from the broader innovation ecosystem who noted that this lack of dedicated IP resources lends itself to support intermediaries discouraging patenting for ventures they are engaged with. Several support intermediaries suggested that if a start-up asked them whether they should spend their money on marketing or filing a US provisional patent application for $10,000, they would always recommend the former. Here, the decision to pursue speedy access to market or customer acquisition versus IP strategy is too often seen as binary as opposed to complementary.

Issue: Ecosystem accountability

Less than half of the RICs and support innovation intermediaries who participated in the questionnaire portion of our engagement had an explicit mandate related to generating intellectual property. This finding is supported by comments we heard from the in-person consultations related to the peripheral as opposed to core nature of IP in their operations. While it is true that the original mandates for this organizational type do not include an explicit focus on IP, the evolution of the intangible economy and its importance in start-up growth, makes this continued omission more glaring.

As it relates to performance measurement, while all participants in this stakeholder group had existing data collection efforts related to IP, a lack of standardization as it relates to definitions and required metrics raised concerns about the comparability of existing approaches and the resources required to collect and administer these efforts.

Respondent Group: Medical and other research organizations

Issue: IP ownership

While medical and other research organizations own the IP developed in their institutions, complications arise when faculty researchers are cross-appointed to universities that have distinct approaches to IP.

Issue: IP funding

Stakeholders in this category noted that the development and commercialization of IP in the life sciences and broader medical field requires significant capital for clinical trials, testing and evaluation that is in short-supply in Ontario and across Canada. We heard that the result of this is a tendency toward the early transfer of IP developed in these institutions to private partners, albeit at depressed values, owing to the early stage of development of this IP. We heard from one organization who was able to receive a 10x multiple on the original license value of one of its healthcare assets thanks to the seed capital received to further develop this asset.

Issue: IP expertise and capacity

There is significant diversity in the levels of expertise and capacity related to IP across this stakeholder group. While some organizations noted more sophisticated and professional TTO-like mechanisms, others spoke of relying exclusively on third-party (and often US) sources for the review of disclosures. Regional third parties (for example, Toronto Innovation Acceleration Partners, formerly MaRS Innovation) were noted as potentially valuable entities if incentives and access were understood as appropriate for each member.

Respondent Group: Northern Ontario innovation stakeholders

Issue: Regional capacity

The issues raised across this process have differed by region. During in-person consultations and in completed questionnaires received from Northern Ontario, we heard participants make explicit note of the difficulty they face accessing IP-related expertise, capacity, education and networks. This issue includes a lack of in-house TTO capacity at northern universities, non-existent regional IP expertise (some noted they go out of province in search of IP experts) and weak formal and informal networks between Northern Ontario stakeholders and their peers in the GTA and Southern Ontario.