More than an IP Policy: what Aotearoa can really learn from Canada's Waterloo
Reflections on a recent visit from Scott Inwood, Director of Commercialisation at WatCo, the University of Waterloo's tech transfer office.
When the Government announced plans to adopt a “Waterloo-style” IP policy—where researchers, not their institutions, own the intellectual property they create—curiosity and confusion spread quickly across the commercialisation sector.
Was this a visionary leap that would empower a new wave of academic entrepreneurs? Or a shift that risked dismantling the carefully built, if imperfect, support systems already in place?
To explore what New Zealand might learn from Canada’s approach, the KiwiNet whānau spent some time with Scott Inwood—Director of Commercialisation at WatCo, the University of Waterloo’s tech transfer office—to understand how their inventor-owned IP model works in practice.
On 1 May, KiwiNet—supported by Auckland UniServices—hosted a workshop with Scott in Auckland, bringing together representatives from university and CRI TTOs across the country. The conversation covered everything from researcher incentives to cap tables, the evolution of the Waterloo ecosystem, and the nitty-gritty of spinning out innovations under the model.
More Than a Policy
One thing became clear very quickly: IP policy is just one piece of the puzzle.
The “researcher owns IP” model at Waterloo only works because it’s embedded in a broader system—one built and resourced over decades to support academic and student entrepreneurship. This is anchored in their Cooperative Education Programme, which delivers experiential learning via 24,000 student placements annually with over 8,000 employers, and their Velocity entrepreneurship programmes.
WatCo offers a full suite of commercialisation services and acts as a trusted partner for researchers, most of whom choose to engage with them voluntarily. That trust didn’t appear overnight—it was earned over time, embedded in organisational culture, and backed by investment. The university has a focus on finding a “landing spot for everyone” in their commercialisation and entrepreneurship journey, whether they be undergrad, postgrad or staff.
Scott was generous in sharing not just how Waterloo’s system works today, but the journey it’s taken to get there. The result is a well-calibrated ecosystem that recognises the researcher as a central actor—while still ensuring the support, infrastructure, and partnerships are there to help good ideas survive the journey from lab to market.
In other words, changing the IP model alone isn’t a silver bullet. It’s what’s built around it that makes it work.
Not a Copy-Paste Job: Aotearoa’s Unique Context
Here in Aotearoa, we’re no strangers to the complexities of research commercialisation. Our tech transfer professionals are already navigating small markets, fragmented funding, variable institutional incentives, and a shallow pool of early-stage capital.
But we also have unique strengths.
KiwiNet’s collaborative model, built over the past decade and a half and working alongside Return On Science within the Commercialisation Partner Network (CPN), shows the power of working together—across institutions, sectors, and disciplines—to share expertise and resources, and support researchers wherever they are. It's a uniquely New Zealand approach: local delivery with national coordination.
As Scott highlighted, even in a researcher-led IP model, success still depends on deeply embedded commercialisation expertise and trusted interfaces between research and industry. These are exactly the strengths we’ve been developing here through the Commercialisation Partner Network.
If we want to build a system that works under a researcher-owned IP model—or any model, really—we don’t need to start again. We need to build off what’s working.
What Comes Next
There are several priority areas where collective action can drive significant progress:
Securing reliable, long-term investment in tech transfer capability across institutions, ensuring researchers have consistent access to expert support throughout the commercialisation journey.
Developing a shared approach to structuring spin-outs – not rigid deal templates, but a transparent and flexible toolbox that provides a landing zone of parameters to align the interests of researchers, institutions, and investors. Inspired by the international exemplars like the TenU USIT Guide.
Expanding early-stage capital pathways and venture-building support, so promising ideas have the resources and wraparound services they need to grow.
Creating equitable access to commercialisation support and entrepreneurship training, so that all researchers—regardless of institution or discipline—have the opportunity to translate their ideas into impact.
Designing system-wide tools and initiatives that build national scale while respecting local autonomy, strengthening the ecosystem through coordination rather than centralisation.
These are all achievable. But they’ll require a coordinated, collaborative effort from across the ecosystem—researchers, institutions, investors, and government working together with shared purpose.
Working together as a community with shared experience and complementary capabilities is our best shot at doing this well.
Designing Our Own Version of Success
The Waterloo model offers a valuable case study in what’s possible when a system is built intentionally and resourced over time. We have the opportunity to do the same in Aotearoa—but it must reflect our unique context and strengths.
That doesn’t mean we should shy away from change. It means we should shape it. Drawing on the strengths of our network, the knowledge of our people, and the values that make our innovation system uniquely ours.
At KiwiNet, we’re committed to continuing this kōrero—working across the commercialisation sector to identify practical, New Zealand-specific solutions that empower researchers, reward collaboration, and deliver impact…
Because when it comes to turning research into real-world outcomes, we’re stronger and more effective when we do it together.
Thanks James, very important discussion and one not to rush.
I say this as after a chat with Scott yesterday.
I asked how long the ecosystem had been developing around commercialisation (in all it's various forms) and he told me it started in the 1950's. The "professors privilege" IP policy was introduced in the mid 1980's.
Having studied other startup and entrepreneurial ecosystems around the world including Silicon Valley, Boulder Colorado, Austin Texas as examples, they all took approximately 20 years to form into leaders.
Building the foundations for success takes time and constant testing and improvement.
I would be cautious of rushing straight to the finishing line with a professors privilege model without building the foundations of industry engagement, entrepreneurial culture and a shared vision alongside PRO's, Government and Investors.