evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

NTNU Technology Transfer AS — university spin-off office behind Kahoot!

Norway · Trondheim · See the Norway profile · See the Trondheim profile

Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 96% 38/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

NTNU's tech-transfer office, jointly owned by the university and regional health authority since 2003, produced its best-known spin-off in Kahoot!, but its own aggregate spin-off and patent counts are unverifiable, and an academic study flags governance problems.

2003
NTNU TTO founding year
1 billion+
Kahoot cumulative players by March 2017 (March 2017)
180 countries
Countries with Kahoot players
215 US$ million
SoftBank investment in Kahoot (October 2020)
2.2+ US$ billion
Kahoot valuation at SoftBank investment (October 2020)
1.72 US$ billion
Kahoot acquisition price, 2023 (2023)
~7 US$ billion
Reported peak valuation
NTNU Technology Transfer AS — university spin-off office behind Kahoot!

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
NTNU Technology Transfer AS
Period
2003–present
Region (NUTS)
NO06
Keywords
university tech transfer, spin-off formation, licensing

Context

NTNU Technology Transfer AS is the technology-transfer office of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim, founded in 2003 and jointly owned by NTNU and the Central Norway Regional Health Authority. It evaluates invention disclosures, files patents, negotiates licences, and forms spin-off companies, typically taking an equity stake in exchange for early-stage support.

Results

Its most documented success is Kahoot!, founded in 2011 as a joint venture with NTNU (originally 'Mobitroll AS') based on a game-based learning platform prototyped by an NTNU professor. NTNU TTO sold its shares in 2014; by March 2017 Kahoot had surpassed one billion cumulative players in 180 countries, SoftBank invested $215M in October 2020 at a valuation above $2.2B, and Kahoot was acquired for $1.72B in cash in 2023 after a reported peak valuation near $7B. Beyond Kahoot, NTNU TTO's own aggregate figures are not independently verifiable: its website's 'spin-offs to date' counter could not be read as a static number, and a separately cited figure of 246 companies established and ~800 patent applications (as of 2020) could not be confirmed from a live source. A peer-reviewed study in the International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation found that unrealistic expectations and the absence of a clear university IPR policy at founding created governance problems for the office.

Conclusions

This is an honest, partially-evidenced case: one strong, independently verified outcome (Kahoot) alongside an otherwise opaque aggregate track record and a documented structural critique.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k)
Time to results
Long (> 3 years)
Staffing & skills
NTNU Technology Transfer AS staff evaluating invention disclosures, filing patents, negotiating licences and forming spin-offs, Jointly owned/governed by NTNU and the Central Norway Regional Health Authority (Helse Midt-Norge RHF)

Conditions for success

  • Taking an equity stake in spin-offs in exchange for early-stage support, aligning incentives with company success
  • Joint university/regional-health-authority ownership spanning both academic and clinical research pipelines

Common failure modes

  • A peer-reviewed study found unrealistic expectations and the absence of a clear university IPR policy at founding created governance problems for the office
  • Aggregate spin-off and patent figures are not independently verifiable — the office's own website counter and a cited 246-company/800-patent figure could not be confirmed

Where it fits

Governance type
university-owned technology transfer company, jointly governed with a regional health authority
Scale
single institution (NTNU)
Income level
high-income (EFTA/Norway)

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

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

Replication kit

Reusable artefacts from this practice — as published by their sources.

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