A recent Tea with ASTP webinar brought together Lisa Cowey of IMPAC3T-IP and Bruno Vandermeulen of the Impact Licensing Initiative (ILI) to dispel some of the confusion that has arisen between these two EU-funded projects, but more importantly, to understand how they complement each other and how the tech transfer ecosystem can get involved and make use of the tools both initiatives are developing.
Below are eight key takeaways we picked out from the conversation.
1.Different missions, aligned goals: removing barriers vs. enabling repurposing
At the heart of IMPAC3T-IP is the ambition to break down barriers that prevent research outputs from being used, whether due to existing legal complexities, lack of commercial value, or poor fit with traditional licensing models.
“The main objective is to remove barriers to licensing — no matter what sort of technology or intellectual asset you are developing,” said Lisa Cowey. “We’re very much about exploring what would stop research results from reaching another user through a licensing deal.”
Meanwhile, ILI focuses on unlocking additional societal uses for IP, particularly where technologies can be repurposed for new, impactful applications.
“We help IP owners find other uses that come on top of the commercial ones,” explained Bruno Vandermeulen. “Or sometimes a societal use can be the start of commercial use.”
2. Both initiatives offer tools, but tailored for different users
While both initiatives provide practical resources, their toolkits are designed for different stages of the licensing journey.
IMPAC3T-IP’s upcoming toolbox is structured around three scenarios:
- Classical Plus (rethinking licensing by focusing on societal impact and accessibility, going beyond patents to include diverse intellectual assets)
- Co-creation (streamlining the transfer of IP created by complex partnerships with multiple owners and diverse licensing objectives)
- Crisis (ensuring equitable access to medical technology for preventable crises and providing flexible licensing solutions for urgent unforeseen situations)
ILI, on the other hand, supports so called ‘Impact Licensing’ by embedding its three core principles into Impact Licensing agreements:
- Intentionality (a deliberate goal to create societal value)
- Additionality (adding to — not replacing — commercial uses)
- Measurability (being able to track real-world outcomes)
“These principles are built into the licensing agreement through enforceable clauses — not just adding nice language in the preamble, KPIs in the annex… you have termination options,” said Bruno. Lisa agreed – you need to put ‘teeth;’ into these sorts of licensing agreements. The Impact Licensing principals are rather like the Affordable Access Plan clause that the Medicines Patent Pool recommends for its Equitable Access licenses.
3. Licensing for social impact is not always the goal, but often the result
Many researchers are not explicitly aiming to achieve social impact. But the nature of their work, particularly social sciences and humanities, often leads there. This may be a new theme for TTOs who have traditionally focused on securing revenues and economic impact from licensing.
“IMPAC3T-IP is not focused on social impact per se,” said Lisa, “but a lot of the research results that are being held back don’t have strong economic value, and you need a different business model and tools to unleash them on society via a licensing deal.”
ILI, by contrast, places societal value at the centre of its mission, treating commercial return as optional, not essential.
“Sometimes the societal use comes first; the commercial side may follow later,” Bruno added. “We help IP owners find other uses that come on top of the commercial ones.”
Both initiatives acknowledge that licensing for societal benefit is complex, but also worth the effort.
4. New licensing models can support overlooked outputs and under-served users
Licensing doesn’t only apply to blockbuster patents. IMPAC3T-IP’s Classical Plus scenario addresses a longstanding blind spot in tech transfer: non-patentable low-value assets, like questionnaires and surveys, or educational tools.
“Trying to do licensing deals for the social sciences and humanities is tough,” said Lisa. “But these outputs can be incredibly useful… we’re helping research teams handle that themselves.”
ILI’s work also supports more inclusive licensing for all disciplines, especially where traditional markets exclude low- and middle-income countries. It does this by working with intermediaries who can facilitate dual-use models.
“That can be a TTO, that can be a nonprofit, etc. A third party that stands between the IP owner and a licensee with a societal need,” Bruno explained.
5. Co-creation and crisis licensing require trust and not just legal clauses
When research involves multiple stakeholders (such as patients, NGOs, or public agencies), traditional licensing often doesn’t quite work the way it could. IMPAC3T-IP’s Co-creation and Crisis scenario-based toolboxes provide tools to navigate this complexity.
“If trust isn’t there at the beginning, there is no licensing deal to bring out at the end.” Lisa warned.
ILI meanwhile offers examples of how co-creation and social purpose can coexist. One standout was a hydrogen-producing solar panel, developed by KU Leuven and spun off into both a commercial venture and a social foundation.
‘‘We managed to bring them together in a project where the same solar panel technology is used for high-end markets in Europe and also for use in humanitarian contexts or lower-income countries,” said Bruno.
6. Simpler, smarter workflows can be the key to scale
Both projects agree: if we want more licensing to happen with the same TTO resources, we need to improve and streamline processes. This means better-designed standard agreements, pre-approved templates, and clearer pathways to implementation.
“If a researcher can approve a non-exclusive licence, it frees up the TTO,” said Lisa. “You don’t have to put in the same level of effort as if it was a complex patent agreement.”
ILI also promotes use of standard templates to simply the process. These are tiered to reflect varying levels of commitment to impact (silver, gold, and platinum) depending on how binding the impact goals are
7. Training and engagement are core to long-term change
Toolkits are only as good as the people using them. Both initiatives are building training programmes to encourage and support real-world adoption.
Lisa highlighted the upcoming IMPAC3T-IP training course, launching in early 2026:
“It’s RTTP-aligned, modular, and practical. We’ll have physical events and many online masterclasses. So people can focus on the scenario that matters most to them.”
ILI also offers capacity-building, but focuses more on global alignment and awareness.
8. Complementary missions mean more collective impact
While the webinar helped dispel confusion between the two similarly named initiatives, it also clarified their strategic alignment.
“We’re producing a user toolkit,” said Lisa. “At the end of the project, it will be handed over to professionals to take and evolve.”
“The more successful IMPAC3T-IP is, the more our pipeline can grow,” Bruno noted. “It’s not similarity — it’s complementarity.”
Together, they represent a shift in what licensing can, and should, do.
To dive in deeper and get a full overview, you can watch the webinar here: