How to divide the benefits of the transformation of scientific and technological achievements by university teachers as the reform of integrating education, technology and talent accelerates? Lawyer's interpretation
The reform of integrating education, technology, and talent is moving from policy documents to concrete implementation. Since 2025, many universities and colleges have intensively adjusted the rules for the transformation of scientific and technological achievements, and issues such as part-time remuneration for scientific researchers, entrepreneurship after leaving their posts, and distribution of achievements have been put on the table. At the same time as the policy is relaxed, an unavoidable question has emerged: who exactly owns the benefits generated during the process of transforming scientific and technological achievements? There is an increasing number of cases of disputes between researchers and schools, as well as within team members, over ownership and distribution of benefits.
From the perspective of legal practice, the core of such disputes is often not 'policy disallowance', but 'lack of clear agreement beforehand'. Policies provide space, while laws govern boundaries. The blank space between the two is precisely the area of high controversy.
1、 Ownership of Service Invention: Policies Encourage Conversion, Laws Ask Who Owns the Thing First
The first legal threshold that cannot be avoided in the transformation of technological achievements is the definition of ownership of service inventions. Article 6 of the Patent Law clearly stipulates that inventions and creations completed in the performance of tasks of the unit or mainly using the material and technological conditions of the unit are service inventions and creations, and the right to apply for patents belongs to the unit.
This provision has been repeatedly applied in judicial practice. The Supreme People's Court has established a judgment approach in multiple patent ownership dispute cases: to determine whether it constitutes a service invention, the focus is on whether the scientific researchers have completed the invention and creation within the scope of their job duties, and whether they have mainly utilized the material and technical conditions provided by the unit, such as funds, equipment, venues, and undisclosed technical information.
The problem is that scientific research activities in universities often have continuity and intersectionality. A professor may undertake both vertical and horizontal projects, as well as enterprise commissioned research and development. It is difficult to determine which party will ultimately form the technical solution without prior agreement.
Article 19 of the Law on Promoting the Transformation of Scientific and Technological Achievements stipulates that research and development institutions and higher education institutions established by the state may, without changing the ownership of the job-related scientific and technological achievements, transform the achievements and enjoy the rights and interests stipulated in the agreement with their respective units. But the word 'agreement' is a prerequisite - without an agreement, the distribution of conversion benefits loses its basis.
The lawyer suggests that the research team sign an agreement on the ownership of achievements and the distribution of transformation benefits with their respective units during the project initiation stage, clarifying the boundary between service inventions and non service inventions, the distribution ratio of transformation benefits, and the division of rights and interests within the team. This agreement is not just a formality, but the most direct evidence when disputes arise in the future.
2、 Profit distribution: How to calculate rewards and compensation? The law provides a bottom line but not an upper limit
The distribution of benefits from the transformation of scientific and technological achievements is the most concerning issue for researchers, and it is also the area where disputes are most concentrated. Article 44 of the Law on Promoting the Transformation of Scientific and Technological Achievements stipulates that after the transformation of job-related scientific and technological achievements, the unit that completes the scientific and technological achievements shall reward and compensate the personnel who have made important contributions to the completion and transformation of the scientific and technological achievements. Article 45: It is further clarified that for the transformation of job-related scientific and technological achievements through technology transfer or licensing, no less than 50% of the net income obtained from technology transfer or licensing shall be extracted for rewards.
50% is the legal bottom line, not the upper limit. In practice, some universities have increased the reward ratio to 70% or even higher to motivate researchers. But the higher the proportion, the greater the internal controversy - who is considered a 'person who has made significant contributions'? Are members involved in preliminary basic research counted? Can graduate students who have already resigned be separated?
This type of dispute is usually handled in judicial practice according to the path of "priority according to agreement, legal basis if there is no agreement, and contribution if there is no agreement and it cannot be determined". But the burden of proof for 'contribution' falls on the party advocating for allocation, and contributions in the scientific research process are often difficult to quantify.
Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm found that the root cause of such disputes is mostly not the distribution ratio itself, but the formation process of the distribution plan. If the allocation plan is unilaterally decided by the team leader without democratic consultation or public disclosure procedures, even if the proportion meets the legal requirements, other members may file a lawsuit on the grounds of procedural injustice.
Lawyer's suggestion: The distribution plan for conversion benefits should be agreed upon by all members of the team through consultation and form a written document, clarifying the criteria for determining the contributions of each member and the distribution ratio. For personnel who have resigned or changed their status, handling rules should be pre-set in the agreement to avoid disputes afterwards.
3、 Part time jobs and off the job entrepreneurship: policies have opened up loopholes, compliance cannot be relaxed
The reform of integrating education, technology, and talent encourages researchers to innovate and start businesses, and part-time jobs for remuneration and off the job entrepreneurship have become popular options. But policy encouragement does not mean there is no legal risk.
The "Regulations on Disciplinary Actions for Staff in Public Institutions" have clear constraints on the part-time behavior of staff in public institutions. Researchers who hold part-time jobs or start enterprises while working shall obtain the consent of their respective units, and shall not affect their own work or harm the legitimate rights and interests of their units. Unauthorized part-time work for remuneration may result in disciplinary action, and in serious cases, it may also be deemed a violation of non compete obligations.
The more hidden risks lie in technology leakage and conflicts of interest. The use of technical information and experimental data from the original unit by researchers in part-time enterprises, or the application of undisclosed scientific research achievements from the original unit to part-time enterprises, may simultaneously trigger disputes over infringement of trade secrets and ownership of service inventions.
Article 9 of the Anti Unfair Competition Law stipulates civil compensation and administrative penalty responsibilities for acts that infringe on trade secrets. In serious cases, it may also constitute the crime of infringing on trade secrets as stipulated in Article 219 of the Criminal Law. Researchers generally lack legal awareness in this area, and many people believe that 'knowledge is in my mind, what's wrong if I use it'. However, the law does not focus on who has knowledge, but on the sources and ways of using technical information.
Off the job entrepreneurship also requires compliance operations. According to relevant regulations, researchers who leave their positions to start businesses should sign a departure agreement with their unit, specifying the departure period, ownership of achievements, distribution of benefits, social security relationships, and other matters. Scientific and technological achievements formed during the period of leaving the post, if mainly utilizing the material and technological conditions of the original unit, may still be recognized as service inventions.
In legal practice, we recommend that researchers complete three tasks before starting a part-time job or leaving their post: obtaining written consent from the unit, signing a results ownership and confidentiality agreement, and conducting compliance clearance of existing technical data. If these three steps are taken properly, the subsequent risks can be significantly reduced.
4、 Compliance insights: Policy dividends should be utilized effectively, while legal risks should be prevented
The policy orientation of the integrated reform of education, technology, and talent is clear - to give researchers greater autonomy, more benefits, and more flexible mobility. But whether the policy dividends can truly be implemented depends on whether researchers have basic legal compliance awareness.
For researchers, signing the job description and intellectual property ownership agreement upon entry, clarifying the ownership and distribution plan of achievements at project initiation, obtaining the consent of the unit and conducting technical isolation before starting a part-time business, and promptly fixing evidence in case of disputes - these actions may seem trivial, but they can determine the ownership of rights and interests at critical moments.
For universities and institutions, establishing a compliance review mechanism for the transformation of scientific and technological achievements, improving internal regulations for profit distribution, and conducting regular legal training for research personnel are the basic tasks for preventing disputes. The policy has given autonomy to transformation, but autonomy does not mean laissez faire, and units still need to fulfill their management responsibilities.
Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm has long been committed to legal practice in the field of education and technology, providing legal services such as compliance in the transformation of scientific and technological achievements, intellectual property protection, non competition restrictions, and protection of trade secrets for universities, research teams, and technology enterprises. If you are facing disputes over ownership of achievements, income distribution, or compliance issues with part-time entrepreneurship, it is recommended to consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible to clarify the rules before the dispute occurs, which is much more effective than remedying the dispute after it occurs.
