Have you had sleepless nights? Have you found it difficult to concentrate on Brexit or the US presidential elections, through wondering when the new Lambert agreements, promised many months ago, will finally be issued?
Worry no more: over a dozen new agreements and term sheets are waiting for you on the UK IPO website.
How are they different from the old Lambert agreements, IP Draughts hears you ask. In fact, he is one of those asking. Well, it’s difficult to say, without a line-by-line comparison. Has anyone done such a comparison? The Lambert committee, for example? And could they share the mark-ups? That would be very helpful for the university community.
Comparing the new and the old agreements won’t provide a complete picture, as some of the new documents are completely new, and don’t have an equivalent in the old set. In particular, there are now 7 bilateral agreements, numbered 1-6 (yes, that is confusing – there is a 4A as well as a 4). The old set comprised 5 bilateral agreements. There continue to be 4 multi-party agreements, numbered A-D.
IP Draughts prefers to call the documents bilateral, or two-way, agreements, and multi-party agreements, though the documents themselves are named “collaboration agreements” and “consortium agreements” respectively. In IP Draughts’ mind, these official names are not descriptive. Some bilateral research agreements don’t involve a true collaboration, and are merely one party paying another to do research. And most multi-party research agreements are collaboration agreements, as that term is normally used. The name consortium agreement seems to have become popular through its use as a term of art in EU funded research projects, and in this context is synonymous with collaboration agreement.
Sometimes, universities will instinctively select Lambert 2 as a starting point. Its terms are similar to those used by US universities in most cases, ie the university owns the resulting IP, and grants the sponsor a non-exclusive use licence plus an option to negotiate an exclusive licence to commercialise.
From a quick scan through the new Lambert 2, and without the benefit of a line-by-line comparison with the old one, IP Draughts spotted the following:
- Many or most of the terms are familiar from the old document.
- There seem to be more optional terms, marked in square brackets.
- One of the clauses mentions the need for the university to demonstrate public impact in its research, and to disclose certain information for this purpose. “Impact” as an important policy objective for UK universities post-dates the date of publication of the old Lambert agreements.
- There are some tediously lengthy schedules that set out policies on issues such as anti-bribery, non-use of child labour, etc. Many large companies now seem to require references to such policies in their standard agreements.
As with the old agreements, the main “variable” between them is their different IP terms. Below is a summary of the IP terms in each case.
No Terms IPR owner
1 Collaborator has non-exclusive rights to use in specified field/territory; no sub-licences (Institution)
2 Collaborator may negotiate further licence to some or all Institution IP (Institution)
3 Collaborator may negotiate for an assignment of some Institution IP (Institution)
4 Institution has right to use for non-commercial purposes (Collaborator)
4A Each party has right to exploit certain results created during project and takes assignment of those results. Institution has right to use for academic and research purposes, Collaborator for research purposes (Both)
5 Contract research: no publication by Institution without Collaborator’s permission (Collaborator)
6 Institution has right to use for academic and research purposes (Collaborator)
A Each member of the consortium owns the IP in the results that it creates. They grant each other party a non-exclusive licence to use those results for the purposes of the project and any other purpose.
B The other parties assign their IP in the results to the lead exploitation party (or the lead exploitation party is granted an exclusive licence).
C Each party takes an assignment of IP in the results that are germane to its core business and exploits those results.
D Each member of the consortium owns the IP in the results that it creates. They grant each other party a non-exclusive licence to use those results for the purposes of the project only. If any member of the consortium wishes to exploit another’s IP they must negotiate a license or assignment with the owner of that IP.
A new feature in the 2016 Lambert agreements is that two templates for term sheets are provided, one for Lamberts 1-6, and one for Lamberts A-D. In IP Draughts’ view, these are not particularly useful documents. They are very detailed and lengthy. If one is going for that amount of detail, it will often be better to move straight to negotiation of the actual agreement. IP Draughts has previously commented on his preference for term sheets, MOUs, heads of agreement and similar documents to be brief, perhaps no more than 2-3 pages. For instance see this article: Keep the Term Sheet Simple. Pretty please…?
IP Draughts is aware that some UK universities use modified versions of the (old) Lambert agreements. It will be interesting to see if those documents are updated to reflect the new Lambert terms. If not, we may end up with a proliferation of versions, and the original Lambert message – that parties should use the Lambert agreements rather than their own, favoured documents – may be further diluted.