ON TIME BUSINESS MANAGEMENT, A+ WORK, ON TIME, NO PLAGARIZING; ON TIME

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Navigating intellectual property (IP): A

comparative analysis of Australian

universities’ IP policies

Hamid R. JamaliID*

School of Information and Communication Studies, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW, Australia

* [email protected]

Abstract

The push towards research commercialisation at universities has highlighted the importance

of intellectual property (IP) policies in fostering innovation and guiding and managing

research commercialisation activities. This paper undertakes a content analysis of intellec-

tual property policies of all (37) Australian public universities, focusing on policy objectives,

definition of IP, ownership of IP created by different creators, and distribution of net commer-

cialisation revenues. It is found that all universities assert ownership over staff-created IP,

particularly when related to employment or utilisation of university resources. For students,

policies tend to balance their rights with university interests, with nuanced approaches for

different types of student participation, but the focus of most policies was on postgraduate

students engaging in research activities. While some policies had clear arrangements for IP

created by visitors and affiliates and Indigenous cultural and intellectual property (ICIP),

about a quarter of policies did not specify arrangements for these groups. Revenue sharing

arrangements vary but generally award something between a third to a half of net revenue

to creators, to both acknowledge their contribution and incentivise further innovation. Poli-

cies included a broad spectrum of objectives, from protecting and commercialising IP to fos-

tering innovation and societal benefit, reflecting varying strategies across the higher

education sector. Policies could benefit from further clarity in certain areas such as the rights

of students or other creator groups. Research is needed to assess the effectiveness of

these policies and their influence on innovation and commercialisation activities.

Introduction

Intellectual property (IP) policies play a pivotal role in guiding the commercialisation of

research, while also establishing the norms and principles that govern the distribution of rights

and responsibilities within academic institutions [1]. As universities increasingly engage in

research commercialisation, understanding the nuances of these policies becomes crucial. Var-

ious countries and universities have different rules about IP ownership, and these change over

time especially as there is more push towards commercialisation of research at universities. A

historical turning point in this area was the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States. The act

PLOS ONE

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304647 May 30, 2024 1 / 16

a1111111111

a1111111111

a1111111111

a1111111111

a1111111111

OPEN ACCESS

Citation: Jamali HR (2024) Navigating intellectual

property (IP): A comparative analysis of Australian

universities’ IP policies. PLoS ONE 19(5):

e0304647. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.

pone.0304647

Editor: Narcyz Ghinea, Macquarie University,

AUSTRALIA

Received: February 11, 2024

Accepted: May 15, 2024

Published: May 30, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Hamid R. Jamali. This is an

open access article distributed under the terms of

the Creative Commons Attribution License, which

permits unrestricted use, distribution, and

reproduction in any medium, provided the original

author and source are credited.

Data Availability Statement: All data are in the

manuscript.

Funding: The study was partially funded by Charles

Sturt University’s Sturt Scheme fund for the Future

of the Profession Research Group. The funder had

no role in study design, data collection and

analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the

manuscript.

Competing interests: The author has declared that

no competing interests exist.

granted the ownership of inventions made with federal funding to universities (instead of gov-

ernment) and encouraged patens on federally funded inventions. This significantly eased uni-

versities’ ability to claim property rights to discoveries funded by federal funds and it further

shaped the IP landscape [2].

Universities in different countries have developed IP policies over the years for effective IP

management and knowledge transfer and to facilitate research commercialisation [3]. An old

review of IP policies in the top 30 research universities in Canada showed that in most cases,

IP ownership remained with the creator, while the university’s share of revenue from commer-

cialisation varied, often being negotiable [4]. In France, the introduction of the Innovation Act

("Loi Allegre") led to increased academic institutions’ claims over IP rights on employees’

inventions, often in collaboration with business companies [5]. Meanwhile, Germany’s 2002

reform, abolishing the "professors’ privilege," resulted in a shift towards university-owned pat-

ents [6]. A review of patent policies in six Finnish universities uncovered a shift towards aca-

demic capitalism, akin to the mature form observed in the United States [1]. This

transformation signified the growing commercialisation of academic research. Geunna and

Rossi [7] observed a shift in Europe from inventor ownership to institutional ownership of IP

rights, especially post-2000. This transformation was influenced by changes in IP rights regula-

tions, as well as broader institutional, cultural, and organisational shifts.

IP policies play a crucial role in shaping the behaviour of academic inventors and the finan-

cial outcomes of research endeavours as a review of IP policies in American universities

showed that tight or loose control over faculty members and establishing clear monetary

incentives for inventors made a difference in patent productivity [8]. There have been a few

studies on university IP policies in Canada. A change from a "university-owns" to an "inven-

tor-owns" IP policy at the University of Toronto substantially increased the number of inven-

tion disclosures [9]. Hoye also underscored the idea that the interpretation of IP policy

incentives is contingent upon various factors, including academic leadership, group norms,

institutional culture, and researchers’ experiences with technology transfer support organisa-

tions [9]. A survey of Canadian professors on the impact of IP policy characteristics on faculty

members’ commercial behaviours surprisingly showed that the ownership regime of inven-

tions did not significantly influence academic inventors’ behaviour. Instead, control rights and

income-sharing schemes emerged as primary drivers of formal and informal commercialisa-

tion activities [10]. However, a study of patents and IP policies at 54 Canadian universities

concluded that policies where inventors own the IP were the most effective for generating pat-

ents within these institutions [11]. Kenney and Patton [12] compared the impact of IP policies

on research-derived entrepreneurship and found evidence suggesting that universities with

inventor ownership policies may be more efficient in generating spin-offs, both in terms of fac-

ulty members and R&D investment. A somewhat similar conclusion was made by Tantiyas-

wasdikul [13] in Canada. Her data indicated that the outcome of commercialisation was

influenced by the policies on intellectual property rights. Despite comparable levels of new

invention disclosures and patent value, Canadian universities that adopted institutional IP

ownership policies appeared to yield a higher quantity of new licenses and patents. She also

found that universities, where the IP ownership was held by the inventors, were more likely to

create a greater number of new spin-off companies.

A study by Love [14] in the United States revealed that university patent programs may

yield a negative rate of return on investments in high-tech patenting. Such programs could

potentially hinder research funding, collaboration, and knowledge dissemination, raising

questions about the overall effectiveness of IP policies in fostering innovation. Okamuro and

Nishimura [15] explored the impact of IP university policies in Japan, formally introduced in

2003, on biotechnology. They found that policies that enabled equitable revenue and royalty

PLOS ONE Intellectual property of Australian universities

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304647 May 30, 2024 2 / 16

sharing, tailored to partners’ needs, enhanced project performance and fostered firm

commitment.

As illustrated above there have been some studies on the impact or effectiveness of policies

which indicated that some aspects such as the ownership of IP, the share of revenue that goes

to the university, and the control rights that the university has over the IP can all affect the

commercialisation of research. Moreover, the impact of university patent and IP policies can

vary depending on the context, such as the field of research, the stage of technology develop-

ment, and the culture of the university. However, few studies in the past have reviewed or com-

pared university IP policies and the first step to evaluate their impact is to analyse and

understand policies.

University IP policies and research commercialisation in Australia

Similar to many other countries, the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 in the USA inspired and stimu-

lated some similar policies in Australia in the late 1980s [16]. All Australian universities proba-

bly had an IP policy by the mid-1990s. This is because in the early 1990s, there were emerging

claims by university administration to IP of staff and students [17] and there were calls for

clarification and minimum standards of protection for academic IP rights [18]. Moreover, the

Australian Research Council (ARC) in the ARC/HEC Advice on Intellectual Property in 1995

recommended that all universities should have an IP policy in place by November 1996 and all

universities adopted the recommendation [19]. Having an IP policy that covered certain issues

was also a requirement of receiving national research funding and all universities certainly had

an IP policy by 2001 [20].

Having an IP policy is not sufficient for successful research commercialisation. While the

pressure on Australian universities to exploit IP due to decreasing public funding started at

least two decades ago when all universities had IP policy [21], Australia still lags behind in

research commercialisation [22–24]. In the last five years, Australia’s rank has been declining

in the Global Innovation Index and the number of its innovation outputs is small relative to its

level of innovation investment [25]. This is while historically Australia’s expenditure on uni-

versity R&D is proportionally more than most other advanced economies, particularly when

compared with business expenditure on R&D [26]. Some experts suggest that the solution

might be to remove barriers and increase incentives for academics to innovate and commer-

cialise [27]. Barriers (e.g., complicated commercialisation procedures) and incentives (e.g., cre-

ator’s share of revenue) might be rooted in university policies and procedures. Two old

surveys of academics and technology transfer officers in Australia showed that about a third of

both groups considered weakness in university IP policy as a major barrier or a barrier to the

success of research commercialisation [28,29]. Therefore, effective IP policy is paramount for

Australian universities in the context of the existing criticism about Australia’s failure in

research commercialisation and innovation [23,24] and the government’s initiative to improve

the situation. Examples of initiatives are the Medical Research Commercialisation initiative

that provides $450 million over ten years from 2023 to support innovative early-stage health

and medical research in Australia. It will help researchers transform ideas into life-saving med-

icines, devices and treatments to help future patients [30]. Another example is a $2.2 billion

investment through the University Research Commercialisation Action Plan which is to

strengthen the role of university innovation and industry collaboration in Australia’s eco-

nomic recovery [31].

However, the only proper review of Australian universities’ IP policies was done a quarter

of a century ago by Monotti [32]. She examined the IP policies of 30 Australian universities in

terms of revenue distribution and IP ownership and found that universities had different

PLOS ONE Intellectual property of Australian universities

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304647 May 30, 2024 3 / 16

formulas for sharing commercialisation profit, with a common approach that usually divided

net profits among the inventor, the faculty, and the university. Originators’ shares in policies

ranged from 30% to as high as 60%. More recently, Ross [22] as part of her doctoral thesis

examined policies and procedures to find out who was the responsible decision maker for cer-

tain commercialisation activities such as identification of IP, investigation of IP viability, and

finding industry partners.

Research aim

While developing an effective IP policy is not enough, it is necessary for successful research

commercialisation. Effective IP management not only safeguards the intellectual assets of aca-

demic institutions but also plays a crucial role in facilitating the transfer of knowledge and

technology from academia to industry. In Australia, there is a need to dissect and understand

the nuances of universities’ IP policies. Consequently, this paper aims to analyse Australian

universities’ IP policies to find out about some of their key features, similarities and variations.

The study specifically looks at what intent Australian public universities pursue in their IP pol-

icies, how they define IP, how they approach the ownership of IP created by various groups

(e.g., staff and students) and finally how they distribute any net revenue generated through

research commercialisation. The study aims to provide insights that could inform future policy

enhancements, fostering a more effective and equitable ecosystem for research commercialisa-

tion in Australia.

Methods

In conducting this study, a systematic approach was employed, drawing upon content analysis

techniques to systematically evaluate and compare the intellectual property (IP) policies of

Australian universities. A similar approach was used to analyse open access policies of Austra-

lian universities [33]. Content analysis was chosen as the methodological framework for its

capacity to uncover relevant information within the content and facilitate cross-document

comparisons [34].

Policy identification

To find IP policies, the Australian Government’s official list of universities [35] was consulted

to identify thirty-seven public universities in Australia. The list of these 37 universities can be

found in Table 3 in the findings section. Five private universities—Bond University, Carnegie

Mellon University (Australian branch), Torrens University, University of Divinity, and Uni-

versity of Notre Dame—were excluded from the study due to their different nature and

administration.

Multiple strategies were employed to identify and retrieve IP policies from the selected

universities:

• Policy Libraries: For universities with accessible policy libraries, the policy libraries were

explored, utilising their search and browse functions to pinpoint relevant IP policies.

• Web-Based Searches: search was conducted on Google, employing primary keywords such

as "intellectual property." Furthermore, complementary terms such as "research commercia-

lisation" were examined to uncover potential policies related to these domains. This dual-

pronged approach aimed to ensure all relevant policies could be identified.

• World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Database: the "Database of Intellectual

Property Policies from Universities and Research Institutions" provided by the World

PLOS ONE Intellectual property of Australian universities

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304647 May 30, 2024 4 / 16

Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) was also consulted. This resource offered links

to the IP policies of various universities.

Policy collection and snapshot

All of the thirty-seven Australian public universities studied were found to have IP policies or

similar documents. All of the identified documents contained ’intellectual property’ in their

titles. However, within this dataset, 33 were explicitly named as policies. Two of these were

named “policy and procedure”. One document bore the title ’Intellectual Property’ without

further specification of document type, but the document’s content confirmed its status as a

policy. Additionally, three documents were designated as ’regulations.’ One university (Feder-

ation Uni) did not have a policy but only a procedure, however, the content of the procedure

was similar to the policies of other universities and therefore, it was included in the analysis.

To ensure a consistent dataset for analysis, all identified policies were collected and saved in

November 2023. This particular time point was selected to provide a static snapshot for analy-

sis, as policies may undergo revisions and updates over time.

Analytical framework

For the systematic analysis of these policies, a hybrid approach encompassing both checklist-

based and content analysis was employed. The following key information was extracted from

each policy document:

• Date of current policy version

• Date of next scheduled policy review

• Responsible office/policy owner

• Applicability recipients of the policy

• IP definition

• Purpose of policy

• IP ownership guidelines

• Revenue distribution

These categories were developed inductively following a review of a sample of IP policies,

ensuring that the analytical framework was aligned with the nuances and intricacies of the pol-

icies under examination. This methodological approach was designed to facilitate a robust

comparative assessment of IP policies.

Findings

Although most of the 37 policies were generally up-to-date with median being two and mean

being three years old, some policies had not been updated for a significant time with the oldest

being nine years old and the newest being updated in 2023. Twenty-six of the policies had a

date for the next review and in the case of 10 policies, those dates were in the past, the longest

being six years overdue, indicating the slow/delayed process of policy revision. The date of first

version of the policy was available for 27 policies and the oldest was in 1983 (UNSW). For two

policies this date was in 1996–7, for nine policies the first version was in the 2000s and for the

remaining 14 policies the first version was in the 2010s.

PLOS ONE Intellectual property of Australian universities

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304647 May 30, 2024 5 / 16

In terms of the ownership of policies, this information was available for 35 of them. In the

case of most universities, the policy was owned by the vice chancellor leadership team, mostly

the research portfolio (DVCR or PVCR). Table 1 shows the terms used in the policies for ‘pol-

icy owner’.

Groups to whom IP policies apply

One important aspect of policies is their scope of applicability. Most policies had a direct state-

ment about this. Four policies did not explicitly specify, however, it was implicitly clear in the

documents. Students and staff/employees were the most common groups mentioned (35). See

Table 2. Two policies that did not use these terms used broad (perhaps vague) terms of ’all uni-

versity members’ and ’entire university community’. Policies mentioned other groups such as

affiliates, visitors, honorary appointments, titleholders, and contractors. Some defined these

terms specifically and some included such groups in their definition of staff.

Definition of IP

Policy documents usually have a specific section for the definitions of key terms used in the

policy to avoid any ambiguity or misinterpretation. Given the core concept in an IP policy is

the IP itself, one would expect it to be defined in any such policy. Surprisingly two policies did

Table 1. Policy owner.

Position Count

Deputy / or Pro Vice-Chancellor (research portfolio) 25

Vice-Chancellor 2

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Ethics) 1

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Enterprise) 1

Director, Research Innovation and Enterprise 1

Director, Research Services 1

Executive Director (ED), Office of Research Services / ED, Office of Industry Engagement 1

Pro Vice-Chancellor Industry & Commercial 1

University Secretary 1

Vice-President (Research) 1

Total 35

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304647.t001

Table 2. Groups mentioned in the policies as people to whom the policy applies.

Groups Count

Staff/employees 35

Students 35

Affiliates 11

Visitors 12

Honorary appointees 4

Adjuncts 2

Titleholders 2

University members 2

Academic status holders 1

Contractors 1

Officers 1

University Community 1

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304647.t002

PLOS ONE Intellectual property of Australian universities

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304647 May 30, 2024 6 / 16

not explicitly define IP (University of Newcastle and Charles Darwin University), and five uni-

versities defined ‘IP rights’ and not IP itself. The analysis of the definitions provided showed a

range of similarities and a few notable differences.

Broad and Inclusive Definitions: Many policies adopted a broad (e.g., CSU) and inclusive

definition of IP. They typically encompassed both registered and unregistered rights. Regis-

tered rights like "patents" and "trademarks" were frequently mentioned, with patents appearing

in 29 policies and trademarks in 32. These definitions often aligned with international stan-

dards, such as those outlined by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). This

indicates a common understanding that IP encompasses a range of protection mechanisms,

from formal registrations to more intrinsic copyright protections.

Detailed Enumerations: Some policies provided detailed enumerations of IP types (e.g.,

Deakin), explicitly listing various forms of IP types, such as "inventions" (28 mentions),

"designs" (32 mentions), "trade secrets" (23 mentions), and "know-how" (17 mentions), indi-

cating recognition of various forms of intellectual contributions. Categories like "discoveries"

(6) and "creations" (3) are less frequently mentioned but their presence in a few policies

showed the full spectrum of intellectual endeavours that university policies may protect.

Distinctions and Clarifications: A few universities made distinctions between IP and related

concepts such as moral rights, providing explanations of what is considered IP and what is

not. In fact, the name of the policy for one of the universities (CQU) was the Intellectual Prop-

erty and Moral Rights Policy. These policies clarified the scope of IP and its relationship to

other rights, emphasising the protection of moral rights as closely aligned but distinct from IP.

"Rights" was one of the most frequently occurring terms with 33 mentions, highlighting that

universities focus on the legal rights associated with IP. The term "legal" however, showed up

only in two policies, suggesting that two universities explicitly reference the legal frameworks

that underpinned IP definitions and rights.

Research Data as IP: There was an acknowledgment that IP may exist in research data (e.g.,

Monash), especially where intellectual effort has been applied to organise or describe the data

or where the data is confidential.

Purpose of policy

University policies usually have sections that outline their purpose, intent or objectives. For

this part of the analysis, text related to either the purpose, intent or objectives of policies was

used. An analysis of statements in the 37 policies revealed a multifaceted approach to the

management and commercialisation of IP arising from research. The overarching themes

identified through these statements highlight the varied priorities and strategies of these

institutions.

Predominant themes. IP Ownership and Compliance: The most common theme, present

in the policies of 32 universities, underscores a widespread emphasis on clarifying IP owner-

ship and ensuring regulatory compliance.

Support for Innovation: A key priority for 25 universities, this theme reflects the institutions’

dedication to fostering an environment conducive to innovation and the generation of new

ideas.

Student and Staff Development: Highlighted in 21 policies, this theme indicates a focus on

providing development opportunities for the community directly involved in research and IP

creation.

Research and Teaching Integration: Found in 20 policies, it showcases the institutions’ com-

mitment to linking research excellence with teaching, ensuring that the benefits of research

activities enrich the educational experience.

PLOS ONE Intellectual property of Australian universities

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304647 May 30, 2024 7 / 16

Commercialisation and Economic Impact: Emphasised by 18 universities, this theme signals

an intent to not only create but also capitalise on IP for economic development and commer-

cial gain.

Advancement and Transmission of Knowledge: With an occurrence in 14 policies, this

theme demonstrates the universities’ role in disseminating knowledge for the public good.

Management Principles: Present in 15 policies, suggesting that universities value the gover-

nance of IP management and commercialisation processes.

Protection of Rights: Acknowledged in 15 policies, highlighting the importance of safeguard-

ing IP rights within the academic setting.

Less common themes. Community Engagement: This objective was stated in the policies

of 10 universities, pointing towards a goal of engaging with the broader community, possibly

to ensure that research benefits have a wider societal reach.

Transparent Management: Mentioned in six policies, indicating an awareness of the need

for clear and accountable processes in handling commercialisation activities.

Real-world Impact: Only two policies explicitly articulated the aim of achieving tangible

impacts from their research, suggesting that while important, it may not be a central theme in

policy objectives.

Dispute Resolution: Similarly found in only two policies, indicating that conflict resolution

is acknowledged but not a primary concern within most policy frameworks. This might be

because universities might include dispute resolution in their IP procedure (not policy) or

have specific procedure document just for dispute resolution (e.g., Monash).

Ownership of IP created by staff

The policies’ content regarding the ownership of intellectual property (IP) created by staff

showed all universities asserted ownership of IP generated by staff during the course of

employment as part of their duties. Universities also claimed ownership to IP created by staff

in a number of other ways. IP generated using university funding, facilities, resources, or IP

derived from sponsored or contract research, or university commissioned projects, was also

claimed by the university. Moreover, universities own any IP that is created using existing uni-

versity-owned IP. While the policies generally supported university ownership over staff out-

puts, they had scope for exceptions which mostly included literary, scholarly (e.g., book,

journal articles) and creative works. Additionally, there may be scope within the agreements

for special arrangements to be made with staff members.

The overarching theme was that universities seek to retain ownership of IP to facilitate

research sponsorship agreements, collaborations, and their educational mission. However,

they also recognise the rights of creators through exceptions and the potential for individual-

ised agreements, balancing institutional interests with those of the staff members.

Ownership of IP created by students

When it comes to the ownership of IP created by students, there were more variations in poli-

cies. Thirty-two policies included a blanket statement indicating that the university in princi-

ple does not assert ownership of IP created by students and then go on to list conditions under

which the university would assert ownership of student-created IP. Five policies did not have

blanket statements, instead only listed situations under which they would assert ownership

(e.g., a student is also a staff and created IP during their employment).

While only one policy (ACU) explicitly named undergraduate students to say that the uni-

versity laid no claim on IP created by them, others incorporated conditions applicable to post-

graduates and research students. For example, postgraduate students might need to consent to

PLOS ONE Intellectual property of Australian universities

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304647 May 30, 2024 8 / 16

non-exclusive IP rights for the university (e.g. Swinburn). In cases where a student is also

employed by the university, IP ownership typically aligns with staff ownership policies, indi-

cating the role of students (as students or employees) in determining ownership rights. More-

over, policies addressed IP ownership in student-involved projects, particularly externally

funded or university research activities which often necessitate IP assignment or licensing.

Furthermore, universities may assert ownership over student-created IP under specific agree-

ments, joint creations with staff, third-party agreements, or when existing university-owned IP

is used. In the case of the commercialisation of student-generated IP, the student is entitled to

a share of revenue. Additionally, students may be required to notify university authorities of

valuable IP to mitigate legal, commercial, or reputational risks. Students generally retain the

right over their thesis (unless subject to a third-party agreement).

Ownership of IP created by visitors

Visiting academics are typically hired by one institution but spend time at a second university

in a research role. Since they may not be employed by the host university, ownership of IP

from their work can be complex. Policies were checked whether they specify ownership in

such cases. In 10 policies, visitors were not mentioned at all. The analysis of the information

on visitors in the other 27 policies showed some variation in how institutions address the intel-

lectual property rights of visiting creators. The universities that included visitors in their policy

can be divided into four groups in terms of their approach to visitors’ IP rights.

A. Six universities (e.g., DU) stated that the ownership of IP created by visitors is determined

by the agreement they sign before their visitation, and five (e.g., CDU) said the IP rights

are determined through case-by-case negotiation.

B. Four universities (e.g., ANU) took a presumptive exclusion (non-ownership) approach by

stating that the university does not assert ownership of IP created by visitors, and then they

go on to add conditions under which they would assert ownership of IP (e.g., when visitors

use the university’s funding or facility and resources).

C. Eleven universities (e.g., Melbourne) took a presumptive inclusion (ownership) approach and

stated that the university owns the IP created by visitors. Some (4) of these universities (e.g.,

SCU) considered visitors as a member of staff and therefore, the same rule applicable to staff

(default university ownership) would apply to them. This ownership usually occurs under cer-

tain conditions such as the use of university resources, terms of employment and so on. Given

the similarity of the conditions in non-ownership (category B above) and this ownership

approach, in practice, the outcome of the two approaches might not be very different.

D. One university (VU) stated the IP of the work commissioned by the university (including

computer programs, learning and teaching material etc will be owned by the university

and visitors will own the copyright of any other work they might do.

Ownership of IP created by affiliates

Another category of researchers who might engage in IP creation is affiliates. Policies were

searched for the words affiliates, adjuncts, honorary appointment/appointees, titleholders, and

associates to find out how policies approached the ownership of IP created by this creator

group. The approach to affiliates mirrored that of visitors. Seven policies (e.g., CDU) made no

mention of affiliates, six (e.g., CSU) included them within the definition of staff, and five (e.g.,

WSY) grouped them with visitors. Ten policies took a presumptive ownership approach and

stated that they assert ownership of IP created by this group, but of course, they had conditions

PLOS ONE Intellectual property of Australian universities

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304647 May 30, 2024 9 / 16

under which such ownership would happen. Two policies took the opposite approach, i.e., pre-

sumptive exclusion (non-ownership) stating that they do not assert ownership on IP created

by affiliates except in certain conditions such as the use of the university’s resources, or the use

of university’s IP, teamwork with the university staff and so on. Four other university policies

stated that the terms in the agreements signed by affiliates will govern the ownership of their

IP. Finally, one university stated that they would negotiate with affiliates about IP cases, and

one policy was not clear in this regard.

Ownership of Indigenous cultural and intellectual property

Indigenous matters are increasingly important in the Australian context and when it comes to

Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP), it is expected that universities have clear

guidelines that respect the rights of First Nations people. Eleven policies had no information

about ICIP. One of them (Griffith) mentioned Indigenous people in the context of Benefit

Sharing Arrangements. The rest of the policies had a section or a statement concerning Indige-

nous people, some brief and some in more detail. Analysis of these statements revealed a con-

sistent and respectful approach to managing Indigenous Knowledge and IP. The key trends

and principles in these statements were:

Recognition and respect: Universities (16) explicitly acknowledged the significance and

importance of Indigenous Knowledge, with a commitment to respect and protect it. This was

often reflected in statements that emphasised the dynamic and living nature of Indigenous

Knowledge.

Ownership and consent: There was a clear stance (13) against asserting ownership over IP

relating to works predominantly created by Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people. Poli-

cies stipulated that the use of Indigenous Knowledge must have the prior approval of the

appropriate knowledge holders and that informed consent is crucial.

Compliance with standards and ethics: Universities (12) committed to complying with legis-

lation, national and international standards, and protocols, including ethical guidelines con-

cerning the use of Indigenous cultural heritage and property.

Benefit sharing: The policies (10) often highlighted the need for equitable sharing of benefits

arising from the commercial use of Indigenous Knowledge. They called for pre-agreed terms

to ensure that any commercialisation activities are fair to the Indigenous Knowledge holders.

Consultation and negotiation: In some policies (14), before undertaking commercial devel-

opment involving Indigenous IP, there was a process of consultation and negotiation with

Indigenous Knowledge Holders to agree on benefit-sharing arrangements.

Culturally appropriate dispute resolution: In the event of disputes regarding ICIP, one policy

suggested that they should be managed respectfully and in culturally appropriate ways, often

guided by specific offices or bodies within the university.

Creator’s share of net revenue

One important aspect of research commercialisation is how the net revenue/proceeds will be

distributed between the creators and the university. This was specified in the policies of 24 uni-

versities. Nine universities did not have such information in their policy, but they specified

this in a ‘procedure’ document. In the case of four universities, no information was found.

These universities may have such information in a document that is not publicly available, but

this could also be a sign of a lack of transparency or an absence of a standardised policy in

those cases. Upon reviewing this information (see Table 3), some trends can be observed.

Notably, the distribution is not uniform; a few universities had a tiered system that adjusts

the percentage based on the amount of revenue generated, while others had a flat rate

PLOS ONE Intellectual property of Australian universities

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304647 May 30, 2024 10 / 16

regardless of the revenue amount. If we ignore the arrangement of a few universities for net

revenues below $100k, the creators’ share ranges from a third to a half, with an average of

approximately 42%. This suggests that a reasonable portion of the net revenue is commonly

awarded to creators, acknowledging their contribution and incentivising further innovation.

Universities had different approaches to the percentage of share that was not allocated to crea-

tors, however, generally, they used the rest of the net revenue to support the university’s infra-

structure, including the academic units and central administration that facilitate research.

Most policies (22) defined how this share is divided between different parts of the university

and some others did not specify this and broadly indicated that it would go to the university.

Those that specified usually gave some part of it to the academic unit to which the creator

belongs (in some cases this is the school or department and in some other cases it is the fac-

ulty). Another part usually goes to the research portfolio perhaps to reinvest some of the reve-

nue back into their research systems.

While the analysis suggests that there is no standard model for revenue sharing in Austra-

lian universities, the share of creators doesn’t vary greatly at different universities (varies

between 1/3 and ½). However, different arrangements of the universities in how they divide

the revenue and how they invest some of it back at the universities show a diverse landscape of

policies that cater to different priorities and institutional values. This diversity could be due to

various factors such as the size of the university, the focus of their research programs, and their

overall strategic goals related to innovation and commercialisation. Further investigation into

the impact of these policies on research output and commercialisation success would be valu-

able for a comprehensive understanding of their effectiveness.

Discussion

The analysis showed that while there are similarities among IP policies of Australian universi-

ties, there are also some differences in terms of structure and content, as well as purpose, IP

definition and some nuances in their approaches to IP ownership and revenue sharing. There

was a variation in the structure and scope of the policies (perhaps due to different purposes

discussed below). Some of the policies were high-level documents outlining things like scope,

definitions, ownership, and obligation (e.g., ANU) and some others dealt with specifics such as

disclosure, investigation, assessment, distribution of proceeds and so on (CQU). The other fac-

tor that contributes to differences is whether universities have a procedure document or not.

Some might not have and therefore, their policy documents might serve both as a policy and a

procedure.

While in the majority of universities, the policy owner was someone from the research port-

folio of the Vice-Chancellor leadership team, in a few universities other officials such as uni-

versity secretary was the owner. Ross [22] also found in her examination of policies that there

was a diversity in responsible decision makers for activities such as identification of IP, investi-

gation of IP viability, and finding industry partners.

A clear and inclusive definition of IP is important, especially as it is a concept that is defined

in Australian federal legislation and common law (e.g. Trade Marks Act 1995, and Patents Act

1990). An overview of IP status at Australian universities in the early 1990s also suggested that

without a practical and rigorous definition of what constitutes intellectual property, key ques-

tions about IP ownership could not answered [17]. Policies approached the definition of IP dif-

ferently, some providing brief definitions focusing on the core concept and some providing a

more nuanced definition listing different types of IP. Those that were more thorough typically

reflected a comprehensive view of IP, encompassing various forms that IP can take, from tan-

gible patents and trademarks to more intangible trade secrets and know-how.

PLOS ONE Intellectual property of Australian universities

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304647 May 30, 2024 11 / 16

Table 3. Distribution of the net revenue generated by commercialisation of research.

University Creator/originator’s share The rest of the net revenue

Australian Catholic University

(ACU)

No information No information

Australian National University

(ANU)

Up to $50k, 100%; above $50k, 50% Up to $50k, 0%; above $50k, 50%

Charles Darwin University (CDU) Up to $25k, 100%; between 25 and $100k, 50%,

exceeding $100k, 33.3%

Up to $25k, 0%; between 25 and $100k, 50%; exceeding $100k, 66.6%

Charles Sturt University (CSU) No information No information

Central Queensland University

(CQU)

40% Unit 20%, Research Division 20%, University (central) 20%

Curtin University (CU) 50% University 50% (details unspecified)

Deakin University (DU) 33.3% University 66.6% (half for research and half for Unit)

Edith Cowan University (ECU) 50% Unit and Strategic Initiative Fund 50%

Federation University 50% Unit 25% and University 25%

Flinders University First $50k, 100%; above $50k, 40% First $50k, 0%; above $50k, 60%

Griffith University (Griffith) 50% Creator admin office 12.5%; Academic unit 12.5%; University 25%

James Cook University (JCU) 40% Unit 30%, University (central) 30%

La Trobe University 50% Unit 25%, University 25%

Macquarie University 50% University (including unit) 50%

Murdoch University (MURD) 50% University 50%

Monash University (Monash) 33.3% Unit 33.3%, University 33.3%

Queensland University of

Technology (QUT)

33.3% University 66.6%

RMIT University (RMIT) 50% Unit 25%, Research and Innovation Portfolio 25%

Southern Cross University (SCU) 33.3% Unit 33.3%, University 33.3%

Swinburne University of

Technology (SUT)

50% University 50%

University of Adelaide 33.3% Unit 33.3%, DVC&VP 33.3%

University of Canberra 40% Unit 30%, University 30%

University of Melbourne 40% Unit 40%, University 20%

University of New England (UNE) No information No information

University of Newcastle First $50k 100%; between 50 and $100k, 65%;

exceeding $100k, 50%

First $50k 0%; between 50 and $100k, 35%; exceeding $100k, 50%

University of Queensland (UQ) 33.3% Unit 33.3%; University Commercialisation Company 33.3%

University of South Australia

(UniSA)

40% Unit 20%; University Venture 40%

University of Southern Queensland

(USQ)

33.3% Unit 33.33%; University 33.33%

University of Sydney (USYD) First $25k, 100%; after that 33.3% First $25k, 0%; after that Unit 33.3%, Vice-Chancellor’s Innovative

Development Fund 33.3%

University of Tasmania (UTAS) No information No information

University of the Sunshine Coast

(USC)

50% Unit 25%, University 25%

University of Wollongong (UoW) 50% 50% (unspecified)

University of Western Australia

(UWA)

Up to $100k, 85%; over $100k, 50% Up to $100k, 15%; over $100k, 50%

University of New South Wales

(UNSW)

33.3% NSi (NewSouth Innovations Pty) 33.33%; University 33.33%

University of Technology Sydney

(UTS)

33.3% Unit 33.3%, University 33.3%

Victoria University (VU) 40% Unit 30%, University 30%

Western Sydney University (WSU) 40% Unit 30%, Research Service 30%

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304647.t003

PLOS ONE Intellectual property of Australian universities

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304647 May 30, 2024 12 / 16

Policies displayed a spectrum of objectives, ranging from the protection and commercialisa-

tion of IP to fostering innovation and societal benefit. This perhaps is a reflection of varying

strategies and values across the Australian higher education sector, with each institution tailor-

ing its approach to align with its unique mission and the needs of its stakeholders. Universities

in Australia have different missions and stakeholders. For instance, some universities are part

of the Regional Universities Network and focus on regional economy and so on, while some

other universities are part of the Technology Network of Universities. However, policies col-

lectively conveyed a strong commitment to supporting innovation, with a significant number

of institutions prioritising clear rules around IP ownership and compliance. The focus on

advancing and transmitting knowledge, alongside economic objectives, illustrated a dual role

for universities: as custodians of knowledge and as drivers of economic growth through

research commercialisation. However, there were differences in emphasis, with some universi-

ties placing greater importance on community engagement and real-world impacts than oth-

ers. The presence of themes around transparent management and the protection of rights

suggested a recognition of the complexities involved in managing IP and the need for princi-

ples that guide fair and effective commercialisation practices.

When IP issues emerged more widely in Australian universities in the early 1990s, the com-

mon approach was to make general claims to IP ownership and then proceed to exclude cer-

tain specified works [17]. In general, creations made by staff in the course of their employment

belonged to the university, while students retained ownership of their creations unless there

was an agreement to the contrary [36]. In response to some of the IP issues at the time, the

National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) developed a model IP policy [17]. Many universi-

ties’ IP policies were likely influenced by that model policy. The current review showed that

there have not been major changes in IP policies with regard to the ownership of staff-created

IPs. In current IP policies, all universities retain ownership of IP created by staff, particularly

when such creation is related to their employment duties or involves the use of university

resources. However, there is also an acknowledgment of the potential for different arrange-

ments through agreements, reflecting a degree of flexibility in certain situations.

There has been generally a lack of advocacy for student IP rights and some experts suggest

that this is an area that requires clarity in university IP policies [37]. When it comes to the

ownership of IP originated from students’ work, the policies generally aimed to balance the

rights of students and the encouragement of their innovation with the interests of the universi-

ties and their investment in resources and facilities. They tended to protect the university’s

investments in research and education while recognising the students’ contributions. Under-

graduate students usually own the IP they create unless specific conditions are met, whereas

postgraduate students may be subject to more complex arrangements due to their closer

involvement with research activities that are integral to the university’s mission. Conditions

that result in the ownership of IP by universities include when students are employed by the

university or engage in projects using significant university resources. However, as Dwyer [38]

suggested, universities need to clarify when they consider their contribution significant

enough to claim ownership of student-created IP.

Not all universities have specific IP rules in place for visitors, and for those that have, their

approach could vary depending on the nature of the visit, the level of involvement with

research activities, and the use of university resources. The situation was similar for affiliates.

Some universities took a presumptive inclusion, and some took a presumptive exclusion

approach with conditions that specified when the university would own the IP created by these

groups. Overall, clarity of rules related to the ownership of IP created by various creator groups

is critical not only to avoid legal complications but also to ensure policies are clear and easy to

understand. In the early days there was not a high level of litigation concerning IP in

PLOS ONE Intellectual property of Australian universities

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304647 May 30, 2024 13 / 16

Australian universities and Dwyer [38] maintained that this could be due to a high degree of

compliance and awareness, a lack of financial resources or a lack of incentive due to the non-

commercial nature of a lot of academic work. With the increasing commercialisation activities,

the probability of litigation also increases, especially if policies lack clarity. Moreover, unclear

university policies are a challenge for research commercialisation [39].

It is a concern that 11 policies had nothing about Indigenous cultural and intellectual prop-

erty (ICIP). Those policies that had a clause or statement about ICIP, their statements sug-

gested that there is a notable effort to approach ICIP with the highest regard for cultural

sensitivity, ethical conduct, and mutual benefit. The policies express a desire not only to pro-

tect but also to actively respect and incorporate Indigenous perspectives and rights in the com-

mercialisation of research. This is indicative of a broader recognition of the value and

importance of Indigenous contributions to knowledge and the need for their active participa-

tion in the management and use of IP arising from such knowledge.

There was a bit of variation in revenue-sharing arrangements among universities with the

share of creators ranging between a third and a half. It seems that compared to 25 years ago,

the range has become slightly narrower as it was from 30 to 60% in the late 1990s [32]. The

share of the university was usually divided between different divisions in some cases. The vari-

ation might reflect the specific context and strategic goals that each university pursues.

Conclusion

The study underscores the importance of clear and adaptable IP policies in fostering a condu-

cive environment for research commercialisation and innovation within academic institu-

tions. It highlights the need for Australian universities to possibly re-evaluate their IP policies

in light of the changing dynamics of research commercialisation, to ensure they remain com-

petitive and continue to drive innovation in the global academic landscape. Based on IP poli-

cies, Australian system is predominantly a university-owned model and this might not be the

best model for effective research commercialisation. For instance, there has been a call in the

last few years for an overhaul of IP policies at Canadian universities for they served more as a

disincentive for innovators and some experts push for a creator-owned model similar to the

one adopted by the University of Waterloo [40].

The paper has some limitations. The analysis was limited to publicly available documents,

and universities may outline some of the details and nuances of IP issues and commercialisa-

tion activities in other documents that are not publicly available. Future studies should look at

the effectiveness of these policies and whether there is a relation between clear policies with

better incentives (e.g., more revenue share for creators) and fewer barriers and more innova-

tion and commercialisation activities at universities. Australian university policies can be com-

pared with those of other countries with similar higher education systems but different

commercialisation performances (e.g., Canada and the UK) to find out about key similarities

and differences and how policies best influence innovation at universities.

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to Charles Sturt University for providing funding to cover the open

access publication charges for this article.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Hamid R. Jamali.

Data curation: Hamid R. Jamali.

PLOS ONE Intellectual property of Australian universities

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304647 May 30, 2024 14 / 16

Formal analysis: Hamid R. Jamali.

Funding acquisition: Hamid R. Jamali.

Investigation: Hamid R. Jamali.

Methodology: Hamid R. Jamali.

Writing – original draft: Hamid R. Jamali.

Writing – review & editing: Hamid R. Jamali.

References 1. Kauppinen I. A moral economy of patents: case of Finnish research universities’ patent policies. Stud

High Educ. 2014; 39(10): 1732–1749.

2. Hemel DJ, Ouellette LL. Bayh–Dole beyond borders. J Law Biosci. 2017; 4(2): 282–310.

3. WIPO. Intellectual property policies for universities. WIPO Magazine, Nov 2019: 50–52.

4. Hen M. Intellectual property policies at Canadian universities. 2010. Available from: https://summit.sfu.

ca/item/13596.

5. Malva A, Lissoni F, Llerena P. Institutional change and academic patenting: French universities and the

Innovation Act of 1999. J Evol Econ. 2013; 23: 211–239.

6. Von Proff S, Buenstorf G, Hummel M. University patenting in Germany before and after 2002: what role

did the professors’ privilege play? Ind Innov. 2012; 19(1): 23–44.

7. Geunna A, Rossi F. Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic pat-

enting. Res Policy. 2011; 40(8): 1068–1076.

8. Mendoza P, Berger JB. Patenting productivity and intellectual property policies at Research I universi-

ties: An exploratory comparative study. Educ Policy Anal Arch. 2005; 13: 5–5.

9. Hoye K. University intellectual property policies and university-industry technology transfer in Canada.

PhD thesis, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 2006. https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/handle/

10012/2855.

10. Halilem N, Amara N, Olmos-Peñuela J, Mohiuddin M. “To Own, or not to Own?” A multilevel analysis of

intellectual property right policies on academic entrepreneurship. Res Policy. 2017; 46(8): 1479–1489.

11. Alam MR. Canada’s innovation landscape: Technological diversity, invention ownership, and university

intellectual property policies. PhD thesis, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 2019. https://

uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/handle/10012/15301.

12. Kenney M, Patton D. Does inventor ownership encourage university research-derived entrepreneur-

ship? A six university comparison. Res Policy. 2011; 40(8): 1100–1112.

13. Tantiyaswasdikul K. Intellectual property rights policy and university technology transfer output in Cana-

dian universities. Rev Integr Bus Econ Res. 2013; 2(2): 467.

14. Love BJ. Do university patents pay off? evidence from a survey of university inventors in computer sci-

ence and electrical engineering. Yale J Law Technol. 2013; 16: 285.

15. Okamuro H, Nishimura J. Impact of university intellectual property policy on the performance of univer-

sity-industry research collaboration. J Technol Transf. 2013; 38(3): 273–301.

16. Flening E. 30 Years After the Bayh-Dole Act: Rethinking the Australian Research Commercialisation

Experience. PhD Thesis, Australian National University. 2010. https://openresearch-repository.anu.

edu.au/handle/1885/9055.

17. Spearritt P, Thomas J. Academic intellectual property in a new technological and industrial context.

Aust Universities Rev. 1996; 39(1): 29–33.

18. Saunders D. The intellectual property of academics as teachers, scholars or researchers. Aust Universi-

ties Rev. 1993; 36(1), 2–4.

19. Monotti AL. Maximising the benefits from intellectual property in universities: awareness of our rights

and obligations. Aust Universities’ Rev. 2000; 43(2): 23–31.

20. Monotti AL. Commercialization of university research and free diffusion–what does experience show

works best in and for Australia? In Arup C, van Caenegem W, editors. Intellectual Property Policy

Reform: Fostering Innovation and Development. Edward Elgar Publishing. 2009. pp. 221–249.

21. Wells N, Coady B, Inge J. Spinning off, cashing up and branching out: Commercialisation consider-

ations for bioentrepreneurs in Australasia. J Commer Biotechnol. 2003; 9: 209–218.

PLOS ONE Intellectual property of Australian universities

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304647 May 30, 2024 15 / 16

22. Ross PJ. Mapping the supply network and resource constraints of publicly funded university research

commercial transfer within Australia. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Queensland. 2021.

https://doi.org/10.26192/q7049.

23. Dodd T. Medical research: $100bn spent with poor results. Campus Review. 2022 November 30. Avail-

able from: https://www.campusreview.com.au/2022/11/medical-research-100bn-spent-with-poor-

results/.

24. Hughes R. The innovation equation: Unlocking Australia’s research commercialisation success.

Advance. 2023 June 19. Available from: https://advance.org/the-innovation-equation-unlocking-

australias-research-commercialisation-success/.

25. Harrison RS, Barnard RT, Pregelj L. Restoring Australia’s long-term innovation requires investment in

basic research. Microbiol Aust. 2023; 44(1): 57–61.

26. Collier A. Australian framework for the commercialisation of university scientific research. Prometheus.

2007; 25(1): 51–68.

27. Daven M. Want more research commercialisation? then remove the barriers and give academics real

incentives to do it. The Conversation. 2021 June 28. Available from: https://theconversation.com/want-

more-research-commercialisation-then-remove-the-barriers-and-give-academics-real-incentives-to-

do-it-161355.

28. Harman G, Stone C. Australian university technology transfer managers: Backgrounds, work roles, spe-

cialist skills and perceptions. J High Educ Policy Manag. 2006; 28(3): 213–230.

29. Harman G. Australian university research commercialisation: perceptions of technology transfer spe-

cialists and science and technology academics. J High Educ Policy Manag. 2010; 32(1): 69–83.

30. Australian Government. Medical research commercialisation initiative. Australian Government, Depart-

ment of Education. 2023 from: https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/medical-research-

commercialisation-initiative.

31. Australian Government. University research commercialisation package. Australian Government,

Department of Health and Aged Care. 2023. Available from: https://www.education.gov.au/university-

research-commercialisation-package.

32. Monotti AL. Allocating the rights in intellectual property in Australian universities: an overview of current

practices. Federal Law Rev. 1999; 27(3): 421–470. https://doi.org/10.22145/flr.27.3.4

33. Wakeling S, Kingsley D, Jamali HR, Kennan MA, Sarrafzadeh M. Free for all or free-for-all A content

analysis of Australian university open access policies, Inf Res. 2022: 27(2): paper 933. Available from:

http://InformationR.net/ir/27-2/paper933.html.

34. Payne G, Payne J. Content analysis. Chapter 10 in Key concepts in social research. SAGE Publica-

tions. 2004. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209397

35. Study Australia. List of Australian universities. 2022. Available from: https://www.studyaustralia.gov.au/

english/study/universities-higher-education/list-of-australian-universities/list-of-australian-universities.

36. Ricketson S. Intellectual property rights in the Australian university context: an overview. Aust Universi-

ties Rev. 1993; 36(1): 5–7.

37. Wright SL, Katz JA. Protecting student intellectual property in the entrepreneurial classroom. J Manag

Educ. 2016; 40(2): 152–169.

38. Universities Dwyer D., intellectual property and litigation: a view from the sideline. Aust Universities

Rev. 1993; 36(1): 25–27.

39. Gao JHH, Haworth N. Servicing academics and building relationships: the case of two university com-

mercialisation offices in Australia. R&D Manag. 2016; 46(S2): 653–663.

40. Baere BD, Maine E. Canada needs a national overhaul of university IP policies. University Affairs, 2017

Sep 18.

PLOS ONE Intellectual property of Australian universities

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304647 May 30, 2024 16 / 16

© 2024 Hamid R. Jamali. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the

original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the

License.