A UK university TTO had three interrelated patents from a single research group. Technically credible. Commercially uncommitted. Accruing annual prosecution costs. The institutional reflex was to ask whether they could support a spinout. That was the wrong question.
What Hatch did
Rather than scoring patents against abstract criteria, each was mapped to its natural point of adoption inside the eventual deployable system. Which architectural layer it sits at. What a partner would have to change to adopt it. What they would measure to confirm value. Which design-around routes would influence claim strength.
That produced three connected outputs for each patent: a Competitiveness Matrix positioning it against its natural baseline; a Market Assessment naming adopter archetypes, buyer value drivers and likely agreement form; and an Implementation Fit Matrix showing the specific change a partner would make to adopt it.
The evidence pointed away from spinout. The three patents sat at different architectural layers of the deployable system. Their combined strength was as enabling IP for platforms being built by others, not as the technical core of a new standalone venture. None of the three carried a company. All of them carried a licence.
The recommendation
Retain and commercialise on a licensing basis. Deal structure calibrated to the architectural layer of each patent. Broad adoption where breadth grows the addressable market, tighter scoping where fit to a specific partner decides the deal. A controlled narrowing rule if commercial traction did not materialise within a defined period.
A decision the TTO could defend on evidence. Not another speculative spinout assessment.
Where it stands
Engagement complete. Findings remain commercially confidential.
TTO with patents accruing costs and no clear commercial path? Talk to us.
