The Select Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills (the Committee) has now published the report of its inquiry into Renewable Energy Generation Technologies.

The Committee found that the funding landscape for energy-related research, development, demonstration and deployment is too complex and recommended that the Government review and clarify the role of each funding organisation, and develop a strategy for communicating the remit of each funding body.

Concern was also expressed by the Renewable Energy Agency that SMEs may be dissuaded from collaborating on projects funded by the Energy Technology Institute (ETI) over fears that they will effectively have their intellectual property rights (IPR) "stolen" by the ETI's industrial partners.

The ETI was established as a unique 50:50 public private partnership, funded equally by the UK Government and member companies such as EDF Energy, Shell, BP, E.ON UK, Caterpillar and Rolls Royce creating the potential for a £1 billion Institute over 10 years. Its mission is to accelerate the development, demonstration and eventual commercial deployment of a focused portfolio of energy technologies, which will increase energy efficiency, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help achieve energy and climate change goals.

The Committee recommended that the ETI should address the concerns of SMEs with regard to the exploitation of IPR generated during ETI-funded projects and believes that the ETI's guidelines on the exploitation of IPR should be formulated to encourage interaction between SMEs and the ETI's partner organisations. The Committee recognised that a careful balance must be struck between meeting the wishes of SMEs, and giving the ETI's members an appropriate return on their investment.

The report highlights the need for businesses and organisations entering into collaborative arrangements to ensure that they understand exactly what they will be getting, and what they will be giving up. Ownership of IPR and rights to access it should be clearly spelled out in a written agreement. Vague concepts like "jointly owned IPR" should be avoided unless the parties know what it really means for them.

By ensuring that the terms are clear and unambiguous, and that everyone gets what they thought they were going to get, a "collaboration" is more likely to operate in the true spirit of the word and be a success for all those involved.

If you would like any further information on this topic please contact Graeme Moffett.

02 July 2008

« Back to Article index