Research Institution

The rule is simple: file first, publish later. In Europe (the European Patent Office, EPO) and in Poland there is no grace period – any public disclosure before the filing date destroys the novelty of the invention. A conference paper, an article, a poster, an abstract, even a defended thesis all count. So it's enough to file an application (even an initial one establishing priority) before any public presentation. Disclosures made under a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) do not count as public. Some countries (like the US) offer a limited grace period, but it does not extend to European rights.

It depends on three things: who the inventor is, where the funding came from, and what the university's regulations say. For an employee of a Polish public university, the rights to research results belong to the university by statute – it has 3 months to decide on commercialization and, if it declines, it may transfer the rights to the inventor. Students and doctoral candidates are not employees, so the rights usually belong to them, unless a contract provides otherwise (e.g. employment in a grant project). For grants (from Poland's funding agencies NCN and NCBR), ownership of the results is settled by the grant or consortium agreement. The details are always set out in the university's IP regulations.

For employees of Polish public universities, the rules are set by statute. When the university commercializes the invention, the inventor is entitled to at least 50% of the proceeds (reduced by direct costs of no more than 25%). When the university transfers the rights to the inventor, who then commercializes the invention independently, the university is entitled to 25% of the proceeds (again after deducting costs). These are statutory floors – a university's own regulations may be more favorable to the inventor. In research institutes and companies, remuneration is governed by contract or internal rules. It's best to settle these rules before commercialization begins.

The agreement should clearly settle who will own the results generated in the project, and in what shares. Background knowledge and rights the parties bring in (which remain their property, with the partners licensed to use them for the project) must be separated from new results. Rules on use, licensing and sharing commercialization revenue are just as important. Confidentiality and publication clauses are essential – including an obligation to hold publications back until a patent application is filed. With public funding, remember to transfer results at market price to avoid unlawful state aid.

Start by defining the purpose of the valuation – value is calculated differently for a sale, for a license and for a dispute. Three main approaches are used: cost-based (what creating it cost – the lower bound), market-based (comparison with similar transactions) and income-based (discounted future revenue from the technology – most common for implemented solutions). A popular starting point in negotiations is the "25% rule" – a license fee of around 25% of the margin on the protected product. Remember that value depends on whether infringement can be detected and enforced. Royalty rates vary widely between industries.

Direct commercialization means selling research results or making them available for use (e.g. under a license or lease) – usually handled by the university's technology transfer center. Indirect commercialization means taking or acquiring shares in a company (a spin-off) in order to implement the results – this is done by a special-purpose vehicle set up by the university. Direct is faster and less risky and brings revenue right away, but limits your share in future profits. Indirect involves more risk and a longer horizon, but offers the chance of a much higher return if the company succeeds.

A freedom-to-operate (FTO) search checks whether a product can be put on the market without infringing third-party patents in force. The attorney identifies the patents relevant to a given market, analyzes their claims, points out blocking rights and assesses the options for designing around, invalidating or licensing them. In deep tech (quantum technologies, biotech, AI, photonics), the patent landscape is dense and changes fast, so deep technical understanding is essential – the strength of a specialized patent attorney. Bear in mind that applications are published with a delay of around 18 months, so a "clean" result reduces the risk but does not remove it entirely.

This decision is worth making for each result separately – and before anything is disclosed. A patent requires full disclosure of the solution in exchange for a 20-year monopoly; a trade secret requires no disclosure, but protects only as long as the secret holds and offers no defense if a competitor invents the same thing independently. A patent is better when infringement is detectable, the solution can be reconstructed from the product, and you plan to license or sell. A trade secret wins when the solution is hard to detect (e.g. process know-how, datasets, parameters). A mixed model is often best – a patent for one part, secrecy for another.

The first-to-file rule applies – whoever files first has the right – so don't delay without reason. But filing too early, on an immature solution, risks protecting the wrong thing. The right moment comes when the invention is defined well enough to describe how it works, and always before any publication. A first application establishing priority helps: it gives you 12 months to refine the solution, run tests, raise financing and decide in which countries to protect the invention (e.g. the PCT or European route). It's an inexpensive way to reserve your date. Above all, remember to file strictly before the solution is disclosed publicly (in a research paper, at a conference or through product sales).

Investors and buyers first check for clean title – whether the rights have been properly transferred to the company (from the university, founders, employees and contractors). Next they look at freedom to operate (no blocking rights), the quality and scope of the patent claims, the filing strategy and open-source license compliance. In deep tech and biotech, IP can be a hard requirement for investment, though it usually ranks third – after the market and the team. Founders' IP awareness is a positive signal in itself. The closer to an exit (a sale), the more IP matters – so it pays to keep the rights in order from the start.