Response to call for evidence: Financing and scaling UK science and technology

On 9 May 2025, the IP Commercialisation Committee submitted CIPA’s response to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee call for evidence on ‘Financing and Scaling UK Science and Technology: Innovation, Investment, Industry’.

This response covers the role of IP in scale-up and problems that are created by the generic IP contract clauses when there is public funding, whether that be through Government Departments, Innovate or other agencies.

We list examples of the IP clauses with source, but they are of the general form requiring some or all of a free, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable licence, with sublicensing rights, to the intellectual property, including any necessary background technology. These are very wide licence rights that extend beyond what would normally be in a commercial contract and are a flaw in an otherwise well-operating IP system in the UK . In particular we query ‘worldwide’, the unrestricted sub-licensing rights and the lack of tie-in to the commissioned project.

It is in our practical experience that innovative tech start-ups and growth companies are hit hardest and disproportionately by these terms; larger companies have a greater IP understanding and ability to negotiate. This is elaborated fully in a later section but stems from the early stage at which such companies become engaged and thus the unknown nature of potential commercial values, lack of IP expertise and exit strategies. For SMEs this is exacerbated by the length and complexity of procurement contracts.

Last year CIPA set up a committee to gather evidence on this subject and though that is not complete we wish to input to this consultation and would be happy to give oral evidence and update the committee as evidence is gathered. CIPA is also prepared to provide deeper explanatory documents on aspects of IP, especially as a practical matter.

We have noted the suggestion in the recent report of the Committee that procurement can potentially support growth companies and scale up. These generic IP clauses in procurement and pre-procurement contracts, especially in the context of small and growth companies, negates making steps forward towards scale-up. When at early stage with young and unadvised companies such clauses are often overlooked, or not understood, and then get found later and can cause blocks to investment because the competitive advantage of their product has been undermined. The global sublicensing rights are particularly troubling in the context of impairing potential export and investment.

We understand that the Government wishes to avoid vendor lock-in but the overly risk-averse approach adopted has economic consequences for the development and scale-up of UK technology. Provisions intended to prevent vendor lock in after procurement are often overreaching and could be avoided in much less intrusive and damaging ways.

This was a Call for Evidence from the House of Lords’ Science and Technology Committee, published here.

Read our full response published in the June issue of the CIPA Journal.

Date published: 19 August 2025