Unlocking the potential of academic intellectual assets for industry, SMEs and startups (CSA)

Expected outcomes

• The topic does not say whether all outcomes must be addressed; treat them all as relevant.
• For each outcome (EO1 to EO3), name who will use or adopt your results (a specific group, not “industry” or “society”), how they get them, and the indicator that shows the change, with baseline, target and date.
• Use the topic's own words for each outcome, so the evaluator can tick it off.

What the scope asks for

Evaluators check the proposal against these sentences of the scope. Answer each one visibly, in the call's own words.

• “The action should explore strategies and implement pilots for actively involving students and researchers (including those in social sciences and humanities) in valorising academic IP and intellectual assets.”
• “These should include hackathons, workshops and larger-scale “summer camp” programmes, and foresee the involvement of interested industry partners than can be potential adopters.”
• “The action should also identify and test models and tools for easier IP access and utilisation by startups and SMEs.”
• “These should cover innovative licensing and other valorisation approaches, especially tackling the issue of unused academic patents, as well as the use of AI to manage and valorise research results and IP.”
• “Proposals submitted under this topic should consider how to exploit synergies with other EU-funded projects covering intellectual assets management, entrepreneurship, and AI for knowledge valorisation.”
• “They should also pay particular attention to reducing the gender gap and promoting diversity in knowledge valorisation, and include dedicated measures to foster gender balance and inclusiveness in this field.”

Conditions that shape the proposal

• Part B, sections 1–3: 28 pages (standard application form). Text beyond the limit is not read; tables and figures count.
• Lump sum: the budget is fixed per work package and paid when each work package is completed. Every work package needs activities and deliverables an evaluator can verify, and the effort must match the money.
• Coordination and support action: no research is funded. Evaluators look for coordination, networking, dissemination or policy support with a clear audience.

Impact pathway and traps

• The topic asks for social sciences and humanities (SSH) expertise. Evaluators look for SSH partners with a real role in the methodology, not a token task.
• The scope expects pilots or demonstration. Name the sites, the partners who run them and what is measured there.
• The topic expects cooperation with other projects or initiatives. Reserve effort and budget for it in the work plan.
• The gender dimension is named in the topic. Show how sex and gender analysis enters the research content, not only team balance.
• Keep outputs, outcomes and impacts apart: what you deliver, what changes when others use it, and the long-term effect.
• For each destination impact you claim, show which of your outcomes feeds it. Destination impacts are long-term effects, not project deliverables.
• Name the barriers outside the project (regulation, markets, user behaviour) that could block uptake, and what you will do if they do.
• Section 2.3 (the summary canvas) is optional on this call; the old split into scientific, economic and societal impact is no longer required.