evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Inova Unicamp — University of Campinas Technology Transfer Agency

Brazil · Campinas · See the Brazil profile

Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 54% 67/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Brazil's first university innovation agency (est. 2003) manages UNICAMP's 1,293 active patents and 212 licensing agreements; patent filings rose 70% in 2024, ranking the university #1 in São Paulo state, though commercialization revenue is modest against portfolio size.

1,293
Active patents (2023)
212
Active technology-transfer agreements (2023)
R$1,720,616.56 (~US$345,000)
Royalties and licensing income (2023)
68 applications
Patent applications filed with INPI (2024)
70%
Year-on-year growth in patent filings (2024)
63 companies
Incamp incubator graduates (since 2001)
60%
Incamp survival rate
77%
Incamp deep-tech survival rate
~25%
Brazil national startup survival rate (comparison)
Inova Unicamp — University of Campinas Technology Transfer Agency

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Inova Unicamp (Agência de Inovação, Universidade Estadual de Campinas)
Period
2003–present
Keywords
University technology transfer, patent licensing, startup incubation

Context

Inova Unicamp is the technology-transfer and innovation agency of the Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) in Campinas, Brazil. Founded in 2003, it was the country's first dedicated university innovation agency and manages the university's full portfolio of intellectual property, licensing and startup-incubation activities.

Activities

The agency oversees UNICAMP's patent pipeline and negotiates industry licensing deals, and it also runs the Incamp business incubator, which has graduated 63 companies since 2001.

Results

As of 2023, Inova Unicamp managed 1,293 active patents and 212 active technology-transfer agreements, generating R$1,720,616.56 (roughly US$345,000) in royalties and other economic gains that year. Patent filings accelerated sharply in 2024, with UNICAMP depositing 68 applications with Brazil's INPI, a 70% jump over the prior year that made it the top patent-filer among São Paulo state universities and 6th nationally in INPI's Top-50 ranking. Incamp's 63 graduate companies show a 60% survival rate (77% for deep-tech firms), against a roughly 25% national average for Brazilian startups, and the World Intellectual Property Organization profiled Inova Unicamp as a case study in university technology transfer.

Conclusions

Most reported figures are self-reported by the agency and are cross-confirmed only for patent counts via INPI's public rankings; no independent economic-impact evaluation of the licensing programme was found, and the 2023 royalties are modest relative to the size of the patent portfolio, suggesting commercialization still lags behind filing activity.

Implementation
Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k) — No operating-budget figures for the agency itself were found in the source material; only royalty and licensing income (R$1.72 million in 2023) is reported.
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Continuously operating since 2003 (20+ years) with no defined end date.
Staffing & skills
Inova Unicamp agency staff managing patent pipeline and licensing negotiations, Incamp business incubator staff and mentors

Conditions for success

  • University research base large enough to generate a continuous pipeline of patentable inventions
  • Dedicated agency separate from academic departments to negotiate licensing deals with industry
  • Incubator support structure (Incamp) to convert IP into spin-off companies

Common failure modes

  • Royalty income can remain modest relative to portfolio size if commercialization lags behind patent filing, as flagged for 2023 in the source material
  • Figures are self-reported by the agency with no independent economic-impact audit identified

Where it fits

Governance type
university-affiliated public agency
Scale
single research university (UNICAMP)
Income level
upper-middle-income (Brazil)

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful