How KTH Builds Startups Without Owning Researchers’ Inventions

What makes researchers choose a university’s commercialisation support when they are free to take their inventions anywhere?

At Sweden’s KTH Royal Institute of Technology, researchers retain the rights to their inventions under the professor’s privilege, unless otherwise agreed. That gives KTH a compelling challenge: make its support valuable enough that researchers choose to use it for their innovations.

This podcast explores how the model works, from free, confidential business coaching and structured market validation to matching research teams with experienced entrepreneurs and securing early funding.

For life science founders, university leaders and industry partners, the central question is practical: what does a promising discovery need to become a business that customers and investors will support?

For those working between Sweden and Japan, KTH offers a useful case for discussing how ownership, incentives and commercial expertise shape the journey from laboratory to market.

Listen to the podcast below, or take it with you:

Download the podcast (MP3)

Download the transcript (PDF)

Read the full transcript below

How KTH Builds Startups Without Owning Researchers’ Inventions

Edited podcast transcript

This discussion was generated using Google NotebookLM. John and Thelma are fictional names assigned to the two AI-generated hosts. The transcript has been edited for readability, with transcription errors corrected and some factual statements qualified. It is not a verbatim transcript, a KTH interview or an official KTH publication.

Who owns a university invention?

John: Imagine you’ve spent the last five years in a university laboratory, working away.

Thelma: Countless failed experiments and late nights.

John: Exactly. Then, finally, you crack it. You invent a quantum microchip with real commercial potential.

Thelma: The dream scenario for a researcher.

John: But here is where things become interesting. If you make that breakthrough at a university in the United States, the university may claim ownership under its employment agreements and intellectual property policies.

Thelma: Yes. In the conventional US university model, researchers typically assign relevant invention rights to the institution. For federally funded research, the Bayh-Dole framework allows universities to retain rights, subject to specific obligations.

John: You might receive a share of licensing income, but the patent can belong to the institution. At a university in Sweden, the starting point is different.

The researcher generally retains ownership of their invention, unless otherwise agreed.

Thelma: That creates a fascinating institutional challenge. When a university cannot rely on automatic ownership to capture the value of discoveries, it has to think differently about how it supports its researchers.

John: That is our subject for this discussion: how KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm operates within this Swedish system.

Thelma: The source material brings together several perspectives.

John: We’re looking at university policies, recruitment material for venture builders, analysis of Swedish intellectual property rules and position papers from CESAER on interdisciplinary innovation.

Thelma: We should clarify that we are focusing on deep tech.

John: Good point.

Thelma: We aren’t talking about writing some code in your dorm room and launching a food delivery app three weeks later.

John: Deep tech involves substantial scientific or engineering advances.

Thelma: Quantum computing, advanced materials, fusion energy and life sciences, for example.

John: The heavy hitters.

Thelma: Exactly. These innovations can require many years of development and substantial capital before reaching a commercial market.

John: That combination of long timelines and capital requirements makes the Swedish ownership model particularly interesting.

Lärarundantaget: the researcher’s starting point

Thelma: Many universities internationally operate with institutional ownership of employee inventions, although the legal arrangements vary between countries.

John: And in the United States, Bayh-Dole is an important part of the framework for federally funded research.

Thelma: Yes. Universities often run a structured invention disclosure process, arrange patent applications and negotiate licences.

John: The institution takes a central role in commercialisation.

Thelma: Exactly.

John: Sweden has a different starting point. It is called lärarundantaget.

Thelma: Usually translated as the teacher’s exemption or the professor’s privilege.

John: Its statutory basis is Sweden’s Act on the Right to Employees’ Inventions, SFS 1949:345.

Thelma: The Act excludes university teachers, in that capacity, from the ordinary employee-invention rules. At KTH, the professor’s privilege is also described as applying to researchers and PhD students.

John: So the researcher generally retains the rights to their invention.

Thelma: Yes, although ownership still needs to be assessed in light of relevant agreements, collaborators and other obligations. It is a starting point, rather than a guarantee that every research result belongs entirely to one person.

John: That creates a different challenge for university technology transfer offices, or TTOs.

Thelma: Because a university such as KTH has no automatic ownership claim over those inventions, it cannot simply rely on ownership to make researchers use its commercialisation services.

John: A quantum physicist can potentially patent an invention, license it to a company or establish a business independently.

Thelma: Subject to the agreements and obligations that apply to the project.

John: Let me push back. If I own a commercially valuable invention, why wouldn’t I just leave and start my own company?

Thelma: You might.

John: So why would I choose to remain within the university’s innovation ecosystem?

Thelma: Because deep tech commercialisation is difficult.

John: How so?

Thelma: A brilliant scientific mind does not automatically translate into commercial expertise. Moving from the laboratory into company building, customer development and fundraising involves a very different set of skills.

John: So having a good invention is only the beginning.

Thelma: Exactly. KTH’s challenge is to offer support that is valuable enough for researchers to choose it voluntarily.

John: They have to earn that relationship.

Thelma: Yes. Researchers need to see a practical advantage in using the ecosystem rather than navigating everything alone. Where investment is involved, they also need to judge whether the capital and support justify the agreed terms.

Free advice and a separate investment decision

John: One important feature is the distinction between advisory support and investment.

Thelma: Two complementary functions.

John: On one side, KTH Innovation provides free, confidential support.

Thelma: And on the other?

John: KTH Ventures, referred to as KTH Holding in earlier materials, provides investment and company development support.

Thelma: The distinction matters. Getting advice from KTH Innovation does not, by itself, require a researcher to surrender equity or ownership of their idea.

John: Although the organisations cooperate, so describing them as completely “firewalled” would go too far.

Thelma: Exactly. The important point is that free advisory support and an investment agreement are different things.

A researcher can approach KTH Innovation, sit down with a business development coach and say, “I think this molecule could help treat a particular disease.”

John: Without that conversation automatically transferring ownership to the university.

Thelma: Right. KTH Innovation can help with patentability, agreements and early commercial strategy.

John: Without taking shares in return for that advisory support.

Thelma: Yes.

John: It almost functions like an API, an application programming interface, between academia and the commercial world.

Thelma: I like that analogy.

John: You have two complex systems: scientific research and the market. They do not naturally speak the same language.

Thelma: KTH Innovation helps provide that translation.

Looking beyond the technology

John: One framework that appears throughout the source material is the KTH Innovation Readiness Level model, or KTH IRL.

Thelma: It helps an inventor look at the whole innovation project.

John: Can you explain how?

Thelma: It covers six areas: technology, customers, the business model, intellectual property, the team and funding.

John: So it asks more than whether the technology works.

Thelma: Exactly. It asks how far the project has progressed towards becoming something that can reach and serve a market.

John: Sustainability also belongs in that discussion.

Thelma: Yes. The model has evolved to incorporate broader considerations, including sustainability, equality and diversity, into innovation development.

John: The purpose is to avoid a classic deep tech trap.

Thelma: Developing the technology while neglecting the customer and the business.

John: But that shift can be difficult. You might be asking someone who has spent 15 years studying a particular scientific phenomenon to start thinking about customer acquisition.

Thelma: A highly specialised expert.

John: Their work has focused on proving that something functions in a controlled environment.

Thelma: Commercialisation also requires evidence that someone needs it, can use it and is willing to pay for it.

John: In a much less controlled environment.

Thelma: Exactly. The transition from scientific validation to market validation can be a major point of failure.

John: Even when the science is excellent?

Thelma: Absolutely. You could develop an advanced carbon capture material, but if the economics do not make sense for a concrete manufacturer to install it, the business will struggle.

John: So the model encourages researchers to consider all six areas in parallel.

Thelma: That is the idea. Progress in technology should not leave the team, customers, funding or business model far behind.

John: Which raises another question.

Thelma: Go on.

John: Suppose a physicist understands the market opportunity and the intellectual property strategy, but has no desire to become a startup CEO.

Thelma: They want to continue their research.

John: Exactly. How does the project move forward if the inventor does not want to lead the business?

Bringing commercial experience into the team

Thelma: By bringing in complementary commercial talent.

John: From outside the university?

Thelma: Yes. KTH’s Pioneer programme, launched in 2025, brings research teams together with experienced entrepreneurs and venture builders.

John: What do these venture builders contribute?

Thelma: Experience in areas such as product development, business development, company building and fundraising.

John: And this involves more than occasional networking.

Thelma: Yes. It is a practical commitment to working with research teams.

John: The original recruitment material described a part-time commitment of at least 20% over six to twelve months.

Thelma: During that period, a venture builder could engage with several teams and explore different technologies. It gives both sides time to assess whether they can work together.

John: The entrepreneur gets to understand the research and its commercial potential.

Thelma: And the scientific team gets to work with a potential commercial leader before making a long-term commitment.

John: A useful way to test the relationship.

Thelma: The aim is to find a match that can lead to a co-founder relationship.

John: Something like a matchmaking process for deep tech.

Thelma: Yes, but with real work involved. A venture builder might eventually become a CEO, project leader or another senior member of the founding team.

John: Not every project needs a dedicated CEO immediately, though.

Thelma: That is true.

John: Sometimes a team needs a more limited form of guidance, perhaps around a particular industry, supply chain or commercial decision.

Thelma: And that is where mentoring can help.

Mentoring with a clear commitment

John: KTH has a network of experienced people who provide mentoring on a pro bono basis.

Thelma: People who have built companies or worked in industry.

John: The mentor programme runs over six months and is also open to eligible teams in KTH Innovation Launch.

Thelma: What interests me is the value of setting a clear structure for that relationship.

John: Rather than asking someone to make an undefined, open-ended commitment.

Thelma: Exactly. Experienced executives and entrepreneurs are protective of their time. If you simply ask them to “mentor a startup”, they may wonder how much work that will involve.

John: And whether it will continue indefinitely.

Thelma: A defined period and an agreed meeting schedule make the commitment easier to understand.

John: The mentor knows what is expected.

Thelma: And the founders know they need to prepare. If you have an hour with someone whose experience you need, you should use it well.

John: You have to prioritise your questions.

Thelma: Yes. The value comes from discussing decisions, obstacles and practical next steps.

John: So bringing mentors and venture builders into the academic environment also brings different disciplines into contact.

Thelma: Which connects to the CESAER position papers discussed in the source material.

Why deep tech needs more than STEM

John: CESAER is an association of leading universities of science and technology in Europe.

Thelma: Its work on interdisciplinary innovation highlights the limitations of treating commercialisation as a purely technological challenge.

John: STEM being science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

Thelma: Yes. Those capabilities are essential, but innovation also benefits from social sciences and humanities, often abbreviated as SSH.

John: Because technology does not exist in a vacuum.

Thelma: Exactly.

John: Take an AI diagnostic tool for hospitals. The code and algorithms are only part of the challenge.

Thelma: Sometimes a smaller part than the developers expect.

John: You also need to understand how doctors work, how the tool fits into clinical practice and how patient data should be handled.

Thelma: And what is needed to establish trust.

John: Otherwise, even an elegant algorithm may never become a useful product.

Thelma: A problem-driven approach requires several perspectives. Deep tech can involve difficult regulatory questions, ethical concerns and public scepticism.

John: Genetically modified organisms or autonomous drones would be examples.

Thelma: Yes. Understanding those issues early helps teams develop something that can actually be adopted.

John: So the IRL framework, venture builders and mentors can all help researchers engage with commercial and societal questions before reaching the market.

Thelma: Exactly. CESAER’s argument is that the relevant expertise should be brought into the process early enough to influence the direction of the innovation.

John: Let’s recap the pathway.

Lärarundantaget gives researchers a different ownership starting point. KTH Innovation offers free support to connect research with commercial opportunities. Venture builders and mentors help address gaps in experience and team capability.

Thelma: And once those pieces begin to come together, the project still needs something else.

John: Funding.

Early capital and the importance of timing

Thelma: The financial valley of death.

John: The gap between a promising research result and a company that other investors are ready to finance.

Thelma: This is where KTH Ventures can enter the picture.

John: Its general investment offering describes an initial investment of SEK 250,000–400,000.

Thelma: A relatively modest amount compared with the eventual capital needs of many deep tech companies.

John: A project could ultimately require millions to develop a product or establish manufacturing. Why does a smaller initial investment matter?

Thelma: Because of when it arrives and what it makes possible.

KTH Ventures says it sometimes invests before incorporation, including in research results and patents.

John: Before a company has formally been established.

Thelma: Yes. In academic research, there can be a tension between publishing results and protecting an invention.

John: I see where this is going.

Thelma: Publishing the details of an invention can create prior art and jeopardise its patentability.

John: So the sequence matters.

Thelma: Very much. Patent rules and grace periods differ between jurisdictions, but filing before public disclosure is generally the safer approach when protection is important.

John: The researcher needs to publish to advance the research and their academic career, while also considering whether the invention should be protected first.

Thelma: Exactly. Early funding can help address that practical problem.

John: Because filing and maintaining patent applications costs money.

Thelma: Yes. An initial investment can support patent protection and other early commercialisation steps. It is not intended to finance an entire factory.

John: It helps establish the foundations.

Thelma: And it can arrive at a stage when many external investors are not yet ready to participate.

John: So the funding helps a research result become an opportunity that can be developed further.

Thelma: Exactly.

John: KTH Ventures also describes follow-on investments in selected companies, up to approximately SEK 1 million.

Thelma: Those figures describe its general offering. Particular programmes and investments can have different terms.

What an early investment signals

John: The amount of money is only part of the value. An early investment can also send a signal to the market.

Thelma: We see that in the example of Kenneth Danehorn, a founder of Neosense Technologies.

John: He describes how the investment enabled the team to work full-time on the project and develop its first product prototype.

Thelma: He also highlights the signal that backing from KTH sent to the market.

John: The association can give external investors another reason to look closely.

Thelma: Yes. It suggests that an investor familiar with early research-based ventures sees enough potential to commit capital.

John: Although it does not remove the risks.

Thelma: Of course. Investors still need to assess the technology, team, market, intellectual property and financing needs themselves.

John: But the combination of early support, a stronger team and an initial investment can make the opportunity easier to evaluate.

Thelma: And help the founders approach the wider investment community.

Patient capital for long development cycles

John: KTH Ventures also describes its approach as patient capital.

Thelma: Which matters when the development cycle is long.

John: Investors in deep tech need to understand that scientific and engineering progress can take time.

Thelma: A new material, medical technology or physical device cannot always be developed on the same schedule as a software product.

John: You cannot push a software update to solve every problem in a quantum processor.

Thelma: Exactly.

John: KTH Ventures states that it invests for the long term and can support companies over five to ten years.

Thelma: That is more compatible with the development needs of research-based ventures.

John: So the value is not just the first cheque.

Thelma: It also includes continuity, networks and support as the company develops and raises further funding.

Earning the researcher’s participation

John: If we bring these elements together, what does the KTH model tell us?

Thelma: That automatic ownership is not the only way for a university to support the commercialisation of research.

John: Institutional ownership models can work too, of course.

Thelma: Yes. This is not proof that one legal model is universally better than another.

What makes the Swedish case interesting is the incentive it creates. When researchers can choose another path, the university has to demonstrate the value of its support.

John: Through useful advice, a structured development process, access to experienced people and early capital.

Thelma: Exactly.

John: KTH Innovation helps researchers move between scientific and commercial thinking. The IRL model helps them assess progress across the whole project. Venture builders and mentors bring complementary experience.

Thelma: And KTH Ventures can provide capital and longer-term support where there is an investment fit.

John: Researchers can therefore choose to work within the ecosystem because it helps them move forward.

Thelma: That is the central idea.

John: It also gives us a useful way to examine our own industries.

How often do organisations depend on contracts and ownership rights to hold relationships together, rather than asking whether their support is valuable enough to attract participation?

Thelma: That is a worthwhile question.

John: The KTH example suggests that voluntary participation can be compatible with complex innovation.

Thelma: It puts the focus on what the institution contributes: expertise, relationships, structure, funding and a credible route towards the market.

John: And that leaves us with a final thought.

Thelma: Let’s hear it.

John: Imagine your organisation could no longer rely on automatic ownership of the inventions its people created.

What would it have to offer to make them choose to develop those inventions within its ecosystem?

How would its culture, support and incentives need to change?

Thelma: It would have to make the relationship worth choosing.

John: Exactly. That is what makes this model worth examining: the challenge of building an ecosystem that researchers want to use.