There’s a moment that happens in research labs across the UK every day. A researcher makes a breakthrough, writes it up and faces a decision that is rarely straightforward.
The tension between publishing and protecting is not news to many researchers. Academics working in applied fields understand the trade-off – publish too early and the IP window closes. Publish too late and you jeopardise grant applications or stall career progression. It’s a genuine dilemma with real stakes on both sides.
This is the valley of death in its earliest form – not the gap between prototype and market, but the gap between discovery and protection.
Building the panel and the process
Not every research breakthrough announces itself. Some of the most commercially valuable innovations emerge quietly – a novel method, an unexpected result, a technical solution that turns out to have applications far beyond the original research question. The challenge is creating the conditions for researchers to act on it before the moment passes.
That’s what the FTH IP pipeline and support services around it are designed to do. Researchers working across the four hubs can submit an invention disclosure – a short, structured description of their development and its potential applications. This is then reviewed by an expert panel designed to catch inventions before they reach publication – and to give researchers and partner university Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs) the domain support, framework, and the confidence to protect their work.
To date, 33 disclosures have come through the pipeline across our four hubs. 16 have been supported. 6 have reached the filing stage. These numbers matter. But the harder work has been cultural.
To demonstrate how FTH is driving this cultural shift, we asked some of the first researchers to put an invention disclosure through the FTH process, what prompted them to engage and what it was actually like.
Professor Mathini Sellathurai, Heriot-Watt University, reflected on how the FTH IP process is driving research forward to address societal needs:
“The FTH process felt like a natural step because our research is finally pushing beyond TRL 3 while revealing some of the untapped potential of EM waves, and we can see the technology taking shape in ways that matter. We’re developing next‑generation Wi-Fi that moves beyond traditional communication to true communication-plus-situational-awareness, and has the potential to address some of society’s forthcoming needs. Engaging early was a commitment to making sure this innovation reaches the people and places where it can create real impact.”
Professor Arumugam Nallanathan, Queen Mary University of London, noted the ease of engaging with the FTH IP process:
“Engaging with the FTH IP process made us pause and think carefully about the potential impact of our research before publication. The process was much more straightforward than I had expected, and it helped us understand how an academic idea could be protected and developed further beyond the paper itself.”
Dr Grahame Guilford, Bangor University, explained how the process helped to validate their work:
“As a result of discussions with the FTH team, it seemed logical to engage with the IP review process to gain valuable input and insight from external sources. The opportunity to access funding was also important as our own University had limited funds to support patenting. The process itself was straightforward and feedback was rapid.”
For many researchers, the instinct is still to publish first. It’s how careers are built, how grants are justified, how impact is measured. It’s a significant ask.
What makes the FTH approach different is that it doesn’t ask researchers to become commercialists. It asks them to think before publishing and to engage the IP panel. The panel does the rest – reviewing disclosures, assessing support and connecting researchers with the expertise and funding for an initial patent filing – followed by dedicated commercialisation support. The FTH is a mere facilitator, and full IPR ownership remains with the respective university.
Bridging the valley
The valley of death in telecoms is well documented. Brilliant research gets published, noticed, but is not always able to capitalise on its full potential – too early for industry to invest in, too late to protect, or too dispersed across institutions for anyone to build on systematically. FTH was funded precisely to address this and it does so directly through the IP pipeline.
When a researcher files a patent, they don’t just protect an idea. They create an asset that can be licensed, built upon, and – in time – spun out. And they give the UK a better chance of turning its world-class telecoms research into world-class telecoms products.
The best advocates for the FTH IP process are the researchers who have been through it. We asked some of them what prompted them to take the first step and what the experience was actually like.
Professor Mathini Sellathurai (Heriot-Watt University) told us how the FTH support for protecting IP is generating impact:
“When research has the potential to make a real difference in technology, FTH provides the support needed to take the right steps toward protecting our IP. That protection is what allows the technology to mature, strengthen, and ultimately become something better for the world. In my 25 years of academic/research career, I have never seen the level of support provided by FTH in the direction of IP protection, industrial links, and standardisation knowledge and opportunities. This will be a great opportunity for knowledge and personal development, as well as, who knows, for a commercial opportunity! “
Professor Arumugam Nallanathan, Queen Mary University of London, explained how the FTH IP process doesn’t slow down academic progress:
“I would encourage colleagues to consider IP early, before submitting their papers. Protecting an idea does not slow down academic progress; rather, it can create a stronger pathway for our research to deliver real industrial and societal impact.”
Dr Grahame Guilford, Bangor University, highlighted the practical value of the combined offer:
“The fact that the FTH is now able to offer a combination of proof of concept funding, IP review and IP funding provides academics with a valuable first step in progressing their research from the lab to the market.”
The potential is significant. World-class research is already happening across the FTH hubs – and increasingly, researchers are finding that the value it generates may have multiple parallel routes if the correct sequence is followed. Whether through patent protection, open-source routes, or standards contribution, there are more ways than ever to ensure that great work finds real-world impact.
