For too long, IP negotiations were slow, opaque, and unpredictable, holding back promising companies. Talented scientists walked away from entrepreneurship because the path felt risky and bureaucratic. Early-stage investors hesitated, unsure whether a university would be a constructive partner or an obstacle.

Those barriers are now lower. All 13 universities have committed to these principles. Researchers, co-founders, and investors now have a more predictable starting point, faster processes, and clearer expectations.

It’s an important step, but we still have a way to go. The Netherlands needs far more spin-offs that attract private capital, scale successfully, and turn public research into real-world impact.

Deal terms should accelerate growth, not stand in the way.

Key Improvements

The updated deal terms build on feedback from dozens of real use cases, international benchmarks, and practical insights from universities, entrepreneurs, and investors. A few developments stand out:

• More context and explanation for first-time scientific founders and their support circle

• Clearer separation of IP-related terms from other services that universities may offer founders, like facilities

• Applicability extended to all types of founders commercialising IP, including venture builders

• Guidance on fair shares and vesting schemes for scientific advisors and part-time co-founders

Why this Matters for Each Stakeholder

For scientific founders: Having their university on board from the start sends a strong signal to the market and investors. Early insights from the Academic Venture Monitor showed that spin-offs with formal IP agreements attracted more funding than ventures without them. Clear and consistent terms help first-time founders negotiate from a position of understanding rather than uncertainty.

For universities: Standardised processes increase efficiency, reduce workload, and enable staff to support more spin-offs with the same resources. This can activate research groups with strong potential that never explored spin-off creation due to expected hassle. The terms must remain commercially fair and reflect market standards to avoid state aid issues.

For investors and venture builders: The updated principles make it easier to assess a company's starting position. Speed, clarity, and a solid cap table are core factors in early investment decisions. Standardisation also lowers friction for venture builders working across Europe, especially when IP originates from multiple knowledge institutions.

Implementation is Key

Progress is clear, but transparent implementation is essential to build trust and enable collaborative learning. We must:

• Increase transparency and international comparability for effective benchmarking against global best practices

• Require public institutions to report deals in terms of percentages, royalties, and process duration

• Provide founders with access to independent advisors and mediation support

Setting the Bar for Europe

Inconsistent tech transfer practices across European academic institutions contribute to the 'innovation paradox'. The revised deal terms will be shared with the European Commission's Startups and Scaleups team, providing inspiration and input for the blueprint on licensing and equity structures it is developing.

This will enable universities to benchmark their terms and improve their tech transfer practices, facilitating cross-border collaborations and dramatically increasing the scaling velocity of academic startups.

The Netherlands has a chance to set the standard for founder-friendly, market-ready tech transfer across the continent. But only if we're willing to be bold in implementation and keep pushing when resistance emerges.

Where We Must Focus

Standard deal terms are just one piece of the tech transfer puzzle. Europe has made progress, but the flywheel isn't spinning yet. A stronger cycle is needed: more entrepreneurial scientists, more spin-offs attracting investment, achieving growth and exits, then reinvesting into the next generation.

To reach two to five times more investable spin-offs in the coming years, there must be continued work on the IP deal term principles, as well as the wider framework conditions.

Priority actions for further development:

• Quadruple the number of academic spin-offs and build a stronger pipeline of future exits by speeding up tech transfer and giving teams the right conditions to scale

• Allocate board-level responsibility for tech transfer

• Require each institution to set out a clear tech transfer strategy, stating whether it is a cost centre or profit centre

• Reduce equity taken in exchange for IP to single-digit levels on average with clear justification for higher amounts

• Develop a full suite of standard supporting documents for spin-offs, including IP agreements, shareholder agreements, and term sheets

Framework conditions:

The updated deal terms sit within a broader set of conditions that also need attention:

• Make transparent deal terms a precondition for access to public funding instruments

• Provide stage-gated structural funding for spin-offs based on milestones and success metrics

• Recognise the entrepreneurial journey as an official professional path alongside education and research

• Encourage entrepreneurship at universities by holding them accountable to clear performance metrics on spin-off creation, comparable to publications and patents

  
  

Moving Forward

The updated principles are a welcome and important step in a continuous improvement process. They help clarify the spin-off process for researchers, founders, and venture builders. That deserves recognition.

But principles are just the starting line. The real test is what happens next. Will universities implement these terms consistently and transparently? Will we see deal timelines measured in weeks rather than months? Will we create the conditions for Dutch deep tech to genuinely compete on the world stage?

The opportunity is enormous. The Netherlands produces world-class research. We have the talent, the infrastructure, and the knowledge base. What we haven't yet built is the flywheel: enough spin-offs attracting serious capital, scaling to meaningful exits, creating wealth that gets reinvested into the next generation.

The foundations are solid. Now we must move with the urgency and ambition this moment demands.