The French «Technology Transfer Acceleration Companies» (Legal Aspects)

Chetverikov Artem Olegovich Doctor of Law Professor; Department of Integration and European Law; Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution 'Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)' 123001, Russia, Moscow, Sadovaya-Kudrinskaya str., 9 rossija-artem@rambler.ru Other publications by this author

The main directions of the state policy in the field of scientific and technological development and measures for its implementation

"The formation of an effective system of interaction between science, technology and production, increasing the sensitivity of the economy and society to new technologies, and the development of knowledge-based entrepreneurship are carried out by <...> technology transfer system organizations <..The creation of an infrastructure and conditions that meet modern principles of organizing scientific, scientific, technical and innovative activities and are based on the best Russian and international practices for conducting scientific research and development and the introduction of high-tech technologies is ensured by <...> support for certain territories (subjects of the Russian Federation) with high scientific and technological potential in order to preserve, strengthen and effectively use it, as well as for technology transfer <...>».

The Strategy of Scientific and Technological Development of the Russian Federation, paragraphs 28-29 // Approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated February 28, 2024 No. 145.

Introduction

In the 21st century, on a scale unprecedented before, the rivalry of states is a race for primacy in obtaining, mastering, and appropriating scientific achievements. The leaders of the race receive a prize in the form of new (high, advanced) civil, military or dual-use technologies that make it possible to more effectively solve domestic policy problems and stand on their own two feet in international affairs. Laggards risk becoming an outsider in everything (in the development of industry, agriculture, healthcare, the armed forces, etc.), as well as losing real sovereignty, becoming a technological hostage of foreign powers.

If the state wants to be among the favorites in this race, it needs to create the most favorable conditions so that the results of research and development obtained within the walls of its scientific and scientific educational organizations (universities, or, in the terminology of modern Russian legislation, educational institutions of higher education) do not remain lying they were a dead weight there, but they flowed into the sphere of production and provision of services, further into public and personal consumption — the sooner and on a large scale, the better.

In the USSR, this conclusion and, at the same time, the challenge was formulated in the form of a postulate about the transformation of science into a productive force of society:

"One of the characteristic features of the scientific and technological revolution is that, compared with the past, the role of science is radically changing, its transformation into a direct productive force of society is coming to an end <..The latter ultimately plays a crucial role, since it provides radical shifts in the system of scientific knowledge, human penetration into the mysteries of nature.

Being closely connected with production, science at the same time acquires greater independence in relation to it, forming an extensive and relatively autonomous sphere of the national economy. This marks a new major social division of labor" ^{[2, p. 105]}.

Today, in Russia and abroad, the expression "technology transfer" or, in a broader context, "knowledge transfer" from scientific to economic life is used for the same purpose; the combined form "technology and knowledge transfer" (French: transfert de technologie et de connaissance) is also known.Knowledge and Technology Transfer" ^{[3, pp. 12, 28, 235; 4]}.

Technology transfer (hereinafter, we will mainly adhere to this designation) has also acquired the status of a legal category used in national (domestic) legal systems and international legal acts.:

The U.S. Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (short name), or "The Law Amending the Stevenson-Weidler Act on Technological Innovation to Facilitate Technology Transfer by authorizing government-run laboratories to enter into cooperative research agreements and by establishing a Federal Consortium of Technology Transfer Laboratories within the National Bureau of Standards, and in for other purposes" (full name) ^[5];

The Technology Transfer Act of the Republic of the Philippines of 2009 (short name), or the Law on the Establishment of a Framework and System to Support the Ownership, Management, and Use of Intellectual Property Resulting from Government-Funded Research and Development, Commercialization, and Other Purposes (full name) ^[6];

Section III "Stimulating scientific and technical research, innovation, knowledge transfer (Spanish: transferencia del conocimiento), their dissemination and scientific, technological and innovative culture" of the Spanish Law of 2014 "On Science, Technology and Innovation" ^[7] and the Royal Decree of the same country supplementing it "On the establishment of knowledge Transfer offices and creation of their registry" 2022 ^[8];

The Model Law "On Technology Transfer and measures to support and regulate it in the CIS Member States" (Appendix to the Resolution of the IPA CIS [Interparliamentary Assembly of the Member States of the Commonwealth of Independent States — Auth.] dated April 14, 2023, No. 55-6), etc.

(It should be noted that legal relations on technology transfer are formed not only through science and business, but also in other formats, primarily between business entities of the same or different countries that transfer licenses for inventions, know-how, etc. to each other (business-to-business technology transfer).

This is evidenced, in particular, by both versions of the definition norm (especially the first one), which the Model Law "On Technology Transfer and Measures to Support and Regulate it in the CIS member States" offers to the legislative authorities of these states, including Russia.:

"Option 1

technology transfer is the transfer of technology, including for the purpose of implementation, adaptation, and application, from one party to another, both in a fixed, impersonal form (such as articles, reports, drawings, equipment, etc.) and in a personal, non-fixed form (technical know-how, professional expertise); transfer of technology, including rights to it, from one entity to another on the basis of an agreement, for a fee or free of charge, including the provision of accompanying documentation regarding the technology; provision of services to support or ensure the implementation, use of technology; provision of information and skills necessary for the use of technology (through training of personnel and (or) providing documentation based on a technology transfer agreement), including the provision of a (non-exclusive) license.

Option 2

technology transfer is the process of transferring the results (rights to the results) of scientific, scientific and technical activities from the sphere of their production (development) to the sphere of practical use."

In the National Standard of the Russian Federation dated December 31, 2016 "Technology Transfer. General provisions" (GOST R 57194.1-2016) technology transfer (or technology transfer in the singular) It is also considered in a broad sense, i.e. it does not matter between which subjects, and regardless of whether there are scientific/scientific and educational organizations among them.:

"technology transfer: The process of technology transfer and the corresponding rights to them [to technologies in the plural — Auth.] from the transmitting party to the receiving party for their subsequent implementation and use";

"Participants in the technology transfer process are entities that create technologies or manufacturers, i.e. the transferring party, and entities that use ready-made technologies or consumers, i.e. the receiving party, as well as, in some cases, government authorities of the Russian Federation and other states."

On the contrary, the reference materials of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) speak about technology transfer (as well as knowledge transfer) only in relation to the relationship between science and business.:

"Knowledge and Technology Transfer (LRT) is a collaborative process that ensures the transfer of scientific results, knowledge, and intellectual property from creators such as universities and research institutes to public and private users. TKT serves to transform inventions and scientific results into new goods and services that benefit society" ^[4].

Technology transfer is interpreted in different ways in the foreign theoretical literature, to the point that the same publication may contain two definitions of transfer: broad, applicable to any entity ("transfer of know-how, technical or technological knowledge from one organization to another"), and narrow, referring only to the transfer according to the science → business vector ("the process by which ideas, concept checks, and prototypes are moved from the field of "research-related" to the field of "product-related"") ^{[9, p. 135]}.

For a description of the essence, problematic and ambiguous aspects of technology transfer in the works of Russian scientists, including representatives of Russian legal science, see, for example: ^{[10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16]}.

In France, which is the focus of this article, and in a number of other countries (for example, Spain, Italy, Chile), along with technology transfer, the term "valorization" has become widespread. In the French legal system, we find both concepts, in particular, in one of its fundamental acts, which codified the national "law of science" in the 21st century — the Research Code. The last book V of this Code, adopted in 2014, is titled "Valorization of research results and technology transfer to the economy, associations and foundations recognized as socially useful"; however, neither this book nor the Code as a whole provide legal definitions (norms-definitions) that establish and differentiate the legal content of valorization and transfer ^[17].

In French, the term "valorization" comes from the word "valeur", which means either an abstract "value", i.e. importance, necessity, usefulness in general, or "value", i.e. economic value, usually measured in monetary terms.

In relation to the valorization of scientific achievements in France in theory and in practice (including in legal documents), this term is usually used in the second sense — as "economic valorization" (French. valorisation économique), the subtext of which is the desire of the authorities to make the scientific sector financially profitable (in a capitalist society, science should also make a profit).

In the works of French economists, the following definition of valorization is proposed from here:

"The valorization of public research [research conducted in public, mainly state, scientific organizations and universities] means a set of measures aimed at ensuring that participants in socio—economic life, most often enterprises, can use knowledge acquired in public research laboratories" ^{[3, p. 28]}.

Similarly, valorization is determined by the state authorities of the country. In particular, in the interpretation of the Accounting Chamber of France:

"Valorization means the way in which knowledge gained in the course of public research is used by enterprises or by researchers themselves to create socio-economic value [= value — Author]."

According to the same body, valorization is a multifaceted process and takes place in various forms, the non-exhaustive list of which includes:

"partnership research between public laboratories and enterprises" on the basis of bilateral agreements, within the framework of mutual consortia and through the establishment of joint laboratories;

"technology transfer, which covers the commercial operation of enterprises in the form of a license agreement [concluded with them— or by creating a new one.] intellectual property enterprises or know-how obtained by research laboratories";

"the mobility of researchers between the public and private sectors [between scientific institutions and business], as well as other types of connections that can be maintained between the sphere of public research and the private sphere" ^{[18, p. 9-10]}.

In the same spirit of the economic understanding of valorization, the Model Conditions approved by the decree of the Prime Minister of France dated February 10, 2021, according to which the latest grant competition for "societies for accelerating technology transfer" was held (see below in this article), provide:

"Valorization, of which technology transfer is an integral part, refers here to the commercialization of goods, methods and services designed based on the results of public research <..Technology transfer can be carried out either by transferring licenses to existing enterprises, or by creating startups."

As you can see, in France, the valorization (economic) of scientific achievements and technology transfer (along the science-business line) relate as a whole and a part, as a genus and a type: technology transfer is a component (element, aspect, one of the directions) of valorization, which can go in other ways.

However, in real life, both concepts can be identified in France, which happened in the case of the "societies for accelerating technology transfer" we are interested in. Judging by the name, such societies, it would seem, should deal only with "transfer". If we turn to the documents confirming their legal status and their charters, we will see that they are already talking about "valorization").

In modern scientific and scientific educational organizations, technology transfer activities, and in France, the valorization (economic) of the results of their scientific work are increasingly acquiring the features of a special type of business. Hence, the "professionalization of transfer activities" (French: professionalization des activités du transfert) is gaining momentum, as French experts characterize this phenomenon (and, at the same time, the trend) ^{[9, p. 123]}): universities and research institutes transfer transfer to the stream from episodic, case-by-case events. constantly interacting with commercial organizations and (or) creating their own startups, and for this purpose establishing specialized mechanisms (structures, divisions, services) in their management apparatus, also staffed by specially trained employees (project managers, marketers, lawyers, etc.).

The generally accepted designation of such mechanisms is the "technology transfer office (OTT)" (other options: "center" or "bureau" of technology transfer), and their role is officially defined as follows:

"An OTT office (center) for technology transfer is a structural unit of an Organization [university or research organization — Auth.] or an independent structure specializing in the commercialization of intellectual property rights, the transfer of creative products and (or) technologies from science to the real sector of the economy and assisting developers in the protection, promotion and implementation of intellectual property results" (Intellectual Property Policy for Universities and research organizations - A model provision of the World intellectual property organizations, adapted for the Russian Federation. Approved by the Department of Transition and Advanced Economies of the World Intellectual Property Organization and the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation on July 31, 2018) ^[19].

OTT has historically emerged and in the vast majority of cases functions as individual transfer mechanisms in the sense that each such office usually serves the needs of a single scientific/scientific and educational organization that creates it and assigns it a unique name, such as:

Stanford Office of Technology at Stanford University, USA;

The Technology License Office at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA;

University College London — Business, United Kingdom;

"Max Planck —Innovation" (German, English Max-Planck-Innovation) at the Max Planck Society for the Development of Science, Germany;

"Research and Development of the Catholic University of Leuven" (English: KU Leuven Research & Development), Belgium ^{[20; 21, p. 1]}.

For the sake of sharing experiences and considering other issues of common interest, technology transfer offices can further merge into domestic, then international OTT associations (formal or informal), for example:

"German Union for Knowledge and Technology Transfer — Transferallanz" (German: Deutsche Verband für Wissens- und Technologietransfer);

"Network for the valorization of Science — NETVAL" in Italy (ital. NETwork per la VALorizzazione della Ricerca);

"Network of College Technology Transfer Centers — CCTT Network" in the Canadian province of Quebec (French. Réseau des CCTT = centres collégiaux de transfert de technologies);

"Association of Innovation and Technology Managers — ITMA" in Malaysia (English Innovation and Technology Managers Association);

"Association of European Specialists in the Transfer of Scientific Knowledge and Technology — ASTP (English Association of European Science and Technology Transfer Professionals);

The global "Alliance of Technology Transfer Professionals — ATTP".

A special feature of France is that collective OTTs have been created there and have received special legal consolidation, which provide relevant services to several or even all scientific/scientific and educational organizations located in a particular region of the country.

The French experience of unification (collectivization) OTT is not only interesting in itself, but also interesting in practical terms for its possible use in our country, which is currently looking for its own effective technology transfer organization, taking into account the best international practices. This article is devoted to this experience in its legal dimension.

History of origin

Like Russia, France is considered to be a country with pronounced statist traditions (statist/statism from French. État — the state), i.e. the strong interference of the state in social processes, primarily in the economic sphere (as a result of the waves of privatization in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the share of the public sector in the French economy has decreased, but remains significant; as for the scientific and educational sectors, the vast majority of its universities, scientific research institutes, etc. are state institutions in France) ^{[22; 23, p. 34]}.

A distinctive feature of French (and not only French) statism is the desire of the authorities to create collective structures that unite enterprises and other organizations based on industry or region and operate with the support, but also under the control of the state.

To understand the historical roots of the "societies for accelerating technology transfer" discussed in this article, the "industrial technical centers — PTCs" (French centers techniques industriels — CTI) are of the greatest interest. The PTCs emerged after World War II on the basis of a law specifically dedicated to them in 1948, the provisions of which are now included in one of the chapters of the aforementioned book V of the French Research Code "Valorization of research results and technology transfer to the economy, associations and foundations recognized as socially useful."

Each PTC is nothing more than a specialized scientific expert and consulting institution that provides support to enterprises wishing to develop knowledge-intensive and high-tech industries. For this purpose, the PTCs are equipped with qualified personnel (most of the employees are technical specialists) and laboratories with equipment for measuring and testing; interested enterprises can also receive assistance from the PTCs in economic planning, product certification, market research, etc.

The French Research Code (art. L. 521-2) defines the role of the PTC as follows:

"The purpose of industrial technical centers is to promote technological progress, participate in productivity improvement and quality assurance in industry.

To this end, they primarily coordinate and facilitate the implementation of initiatives. They carry out the necessary laboratory and development work or ensure that it is carried out, and in particular, within the framework of existing legislation and in coordination with specially authorized organizations, they participate in standardization research and in establishing rules for quality control. They make the results of their work available to the interested industry.

Industrial technical centers operate within the network and must provide information to the coordinating authority, with the consent of enterprises seeking assistance in research and innovation, that can facilitate the involvement of all centers in the network. When carrying out such activities, they ensure that production secrets that have become known to them are not disclosed, unless otherwise established by law."

Also, according to the French Research Code (Articles L. 521-1, L. 521-3 — L. 521-6, R. 521-1), PTCs are organizationally "socially useful institutions" with the status of a legal entity, enjoy "administrative and financial autonomy", but are subject to "economic and financial control of the state." PTCs are created by decision of the "competent administrative authority" of the state "in any field of activity where this is required by common interest.", <...> after receiving the opinion of the most representative professional organizations of employers and employees of these industries." The highest collegial body of each PTC is the board (French: conseil d'administration), which is composed of representatives of the heads of enterprises, representatives of the personnel of the relevant industry, as well as representatives of higher technical educational institutions and other "particularly competent persons" who express the interests of the relevant industry or consumers of its products. The state is represented at the board meetings of each PTC by a government commissioner who has the right to veto its decisions without delay (the veto is confirmed or removed by the head of the ministry under whose authority a particular PTC is placed: the Ministry of Industry, Agriculture, etc.).

Currently, the "PTC Network" (French. CTI Réseau), which includes professional technical centers and their counterparts from all over the country, has 15 similar institutions. Modern French PTCs operate in various, though not all, branches of the national industry (Industrial Technical Center for Metal Structures, Technical Center for Mechanical Engineering, Center for Research and Development of the Concrete Industry, etc.), have 55 regional offices and employ approximately 2,600 employees, including 1,900 (over 70%) they are engineers and technicians ^[24].

In the 21st century, the French authorities inspired the establishment of collective structures, which this time united non-profit organizations, which form the sector of higher education (universities, etc.) and non-university (research institutes, etc.) French science.

The initiative to create technology transfer offices jointly operated by two or more scientific/scientific and educational organizations in a particular region of the country (in French: "mutualisation" from "mutuel" - mutual, joint), including through the unification (collectivisation) of individual transfer offices, if any, was put forward. In 2003, ministers in charge of industry, scientific research and new technologies in the French government ^{[9, pp. 15-16]}.

To implement this initiative in 2005, the National Research Agency (French: Agence nationale de recherche), a single state institution (fund) for grant financing of science, held a project selection competition, as a result of which "joint technology transfer mechanisms" (French: dispositifs mutualisés de transfert de technologie) were launched in about half of the country ^{[25, pp. 2-3]}.

The idea of collectivization of technology transfer offices was finalized at the turn of the first and second decades of the 21st century. In 2009, prepared on behalf of the President of France by a special commission of government and independent experts led by two former prime ministers of the country representing different flanks of the political spectrum (M. Rocard is a socialist; A. Juppe is a Gaullist, center—right), a report entitled "Investments in the future" recommended that the state, among other things, additionally fork out for measures to "professionalize and collectivize (mutualization) technology transfer support mechanisms" ^[26].

The result was the adoption by the Government and Parliament in 2010 of a large-scale program, more precisely, a series of multi-year budget allocation programs called the "Investment Program for the Future" (the first Program in 2010 was 35 billion rubles). euro; the second Program of 2014 — 12 billion. euro; the third Program of 2017 — 10 billion. Euro; the fourth Program in 2020 is 20 billion euros. euro) ^[27] and, within this framework, the allocation of financial resources for the creation of "societies for accelerating technology transfer — SATT" throughout the country (French: société s d'accoréation du transfert de technologies — SATT), as the mechanism of interest to us was eventually named (then without quotes).

The introductory provisions of the Convention of July 29, 2010 on the financing of the ITT, an administrative and legal agreement between the French state as a whole (on behalf of the latter, the document was signed by the Prime Minister, the Minister responsible for Economy and Industry, and the Minister of Higher Education and Research), on the one hand, and the state Foundation for Grant Financing of Science (National research agency) — on the other hand, the nature and purpose of the new mechanism were determined as follows:

"The government intends to increase the effectiveness of the French system of valorization of public research, seriously increase its results both in the form of licenses [granted for the use of intellectual property results — Ed.], industrial partnerships, establishment of enterprises, and facilitating the mobility of public researchers to the private sector and back. <..> 900 million euros [initial financial contribution from the State — Auth.] will be used to support the creation of a very limited number of local valorization societies (up to twelve) by groups of research institutions and organizations. These societies are hereinafter referred to as “societies for accelerating technology transfer”. They are designed to bring together teams of employees who are engaged in valorization at university locations and end the fragmentation of such structures in order to significantly increase the efficiency of technology transfer and the economic value created. Their appearance should lead to greater professionalism in the valorization of research and increased competence [in matters of valorization and transfer]" ^[28].

Competitions then organized by the National Research Center led to the creation of 14 ITPS in 2011-2014 (two more than originally planned), including through the transformation of the aforementioned "joint technology transfer mechanisms." Later, this number was reduced to 13 CCTS, but while maintaining nationwide coverage, thanks to which almost every French scientific/scientific and educational organization is able to find a suitable society for itself in its location and become a member.

Sources of legal status

Unlike other important legal (including organizational and legal) mechanisms for stimulating the economic profitability of scientific research and high-tech business in France, such as the "research tax credit" (French crédit d'impôt—recherche), "joint funds for investing in innovation" (French. fonds communs de placement dans l'innovation) or the industrial technical centers discussed above are not regulated by the French Research Code.

On the one hand, this can be regarded and criticized as a gap in the specified source: the code is adopted in order to cover all essential aspects of a branch of law or other major sphere of public life with its norms, and the importance of the ITT for French science is beyond doubt.

On the other hand, it also provides flexibility in the legal regulation of the mechanism in question: it allows the authorities, without affecting the fundamental act of the French "law of science", to adjust the rules of operation of the OTA or even decide on their liquidation or transformation into another mechanism if their continued existence is deemed inappropriate.

The participation of the French Parliament, i.e. the legislature, in the regulation of public transport is reduced to the authorization in financial (budgetary) laws of allocations for their support. Otherwise, all regulation comes from the executive branch in the broadest sense of the word, including not only the government and its competent ministries, but also institutions enjoying legal, administrative and financial autonomy, such as the National Research Agency — the previously mentioned State Fund for Grant Support of Science, and the Public Investment Bank (French. Banque publique d'investissement) is a national development institute similar to the Russian State Development Corporation VEB.RF (formerly Vnesheconombank).

Accordingly, the main sources of the legal status of the ITT are administrative and legal agreements of a regulatory nature (French: contrats administratifs) concluded between the state as a whole (on its behalf the government acts in the person of the Prime Minister and relevant ministers) and the named authorities.

The first of these was the ten-year Convention signed on July 29, 2010 between the State and the National Research Agency, which legally established the ITT mechanism (see the previous section of this article). The Convention of July 29, 2010 was replaced by the conventions of July 19, 2019, together with the additional agreements of 2020 — 2023.:

between the same parties regarding the extension of financial assistance for the ITT, first until July 29, 2025, then until December 31, 2029 ^{[29; 30; 31]};

between the same parties and a Public Investment Bank (the Bank itself as a state institution is a "Public Investment Bank" — EPIC Bfifrance plus its subsidiary in the form of a joint-stock company Bpifrance Finance SA) ^[32].

According to the above-mentioned sources, the final decision on granting the status of an OUTT is made by the Prime Minister, i.e. the head of the government of the country. He also, through unilateral administrative acts (French: actes administratifs unilatéraux), approves the Standard Conditions for the selection of ITT projects at grant competitions held by the National Research Agency. The last such competition to date was held in 2021 according to the Standard Conditions approved by the decree of the Prime Minister of France dated February 10, 2021 ^{[33; 34]}.

Based on the provisions of the sources that determine the legal status of the ITT as a whole, the state, together with interested scientific/scientific and educational organizations, further draw up acts and treaties that serve as the constituent documents of each individual ITT.:

a financing contract (French: contrat bénéficiaire), through which a National Research Agency undertakes to allocate certain amounts of money (with the right to financial control over their expenditure), and scientific/scientific and educational organizations undertake corresponding obligations to achieve specified performance indicators, submit financial statements, etc. (signing a contract is a prerequisite, only in the case of which a scientific/scientific-educational organization can become a part of the OUTT);

The charter (French: statutes), which, on the one hand, incorporates the standard rules provided for by the above-mentioned sources of law for all CCTS, on the other hand, introduces provisions reflecting the specifics of a particular CCT (name, participants, location, size of the authorized capital, etc.).

Principles of creation and functioning

1. Voluntary. The creation of the ITT is the result of an initiative by the scientific/scientific and educational organizations themselves, who wish to combine their individual technology transfer offices or create them from scratch, if they did not have such offices before. The state encourages such initiatives exclusively by using the financial "carrot" method, promising to provide monetary support if the project for the creation or continued operation of a particular ITT is selected during a competition organized by the National Research Agency and approved by the Prime Minister of the country.

As practice has shown, financial incentives in this case are very effective, however, leaving scientific / scientific and educational organizations room for their own "whims".

Thus, the largest representative of the non-university subsector of French science, which operates nationwide and includes research institutes in all fields of knowledge, is the National Research Center (French: The Centre national de la recherche scientifique —CNRS), actively supported the new mechanism and became part of all 13 CCTS.

On the contrary, the Commissariat for Atomic Energy and Alternative Forms of Energy (French. The Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA), another flagship of French science (also non—university), which today conducts research and development not only in the energy sector, has taken a skeptical position. Later, the Commissariat nevertheless agreed to join the ITT in some regions, but continues to develop technology transfer, mainly through its own (individual) office, which it acquired as the first among French scientific organizations back in 1957.

If a scientific/scientific and educational organization does not want (or is not yet ready) to join the ITT, but wants to establish cooperation with it and use its services, then it is acceptable to use a bilateral partnership scheme based on contracts concluded between it and a specific ITT as independent legal entities. According to this scheme, national scientific organizations such as the National Research Institute in the Field of Computer Science and Automation (French: National Institute of Computer Science and Automation) are working with some regional ITPS. Institut national de recherche en informatique et en automatique — INRIA) or the National Institute of Agronomic Research (French. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique — INRA), transformed in 2020 into the National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment (French. Institut national de recherche pour l’agriculture, l’alimentation et l’environnement — INRAE).

(Unless otherwise indicated, statistical and other background information on the functioning of the ITT is provided in accordance with assessment reports prepared by the Accounts Chamber and the Finance Commission of the Senate— the upper house of the French Parliament ^{[18; 35]}.

2. Non-exclusivity (non-exclusivity). Initially, the OUTT was designed by the French authorities as a single-window mechanism. guichet unique) in the field of science-business technology transfer, which "was supposed to replace all existing local departments of universities and research organizations responsible for transfer" ^[36].

However, life took a different path. French scientific/scientific and educational organizations are not only not forced to join the ITT, but also, if they do, they are not obliged to give up individual transfer offices on this occasion, as they have done in the vast majority of cases. Hence, the French OUTT researchers conclude that as collective technology transfer offices, OUTT "does not replace", but only "complements" individual offices that continue to operate in French universities and research institutes ^{[9, pp. 57, 61]}.

Similarly, the emergence of the ITT did not entail the liquidation of other organizations that deal with technology transfer at the national and regional levels, such as the regional centers for Innovation and Technology Transfer. Centers régionaux d'innovation et de transfert de technologie — CRITT), operating since the 80s of the XX century.

This kind of multiplicity (pluralism) of organizational structures, on the one hand, gives the French technology transfer organization additional complexity with elements of duplication (the same activities for the benefit of the same scientific/scientific-educational organization are performed by employees of both its individual and collective office, i.e. ITT), and also makes it is more expensive (additional costs for the staff of different transfer offices, rental of premises, etc.).

On the other hand, due to this, competitive principles are developing in technology transfer, when different transfer offices compete with each other for clients, and scientific / scientific-educational organizations and their employees get the opportunity to contact those who, in their opinion, will do better, or, failing to succeed in one office, repeat the attempt. in the other (a kind of technology transfer services market).

3. Regional character. The historical prototype of the OUTT is industrial technical centers (ATCs), which provide services to enterprises for the development of high—tech industries, formed on an industry basis — mechanical engineering, concrete industry, etc. (see the previous section of this article).

It is not possible to use an industry-specific approach in the ITT, since only a part of scientific/scientific and educational organizations are specialized; others (in particular, all universities and the largest multidisciplinary scientific organizations, such as the National Research Center) are multidisciplinary institutions, i.e. they conduct research and development in various fields of science, so is the national economy.

Thus, the OUTT is based on the territorial (regional) criterion.: They unite scientific/scientific and educational organizations located in certain regions - the largest units of the administrative—territorial division of the country and, at the same time, "territorial collectives" (French: collectivités territoriales) with their own bodies and prerogatives of public authority, which are determined by the General Code of Territorial Collectives of France ^[37].

After the territorial reform of 2014, the number of regions in the European part of France was reduced from 22 to 13; today there are the same number of regions. However, this does not mean that geographically each OUTT is linked to a single region. There are outts that extend their activities to several regions. On the other hand, there are also regions where two or more CCTS have been created (the Ile-de-France metropolitan region is the leader, with three CCTS with different membership).

Parallel membership in different CCTS is also not prohibited. This opportunity is used, in particular, by scientific organizations of a national nature (we recall that the largest of them, the National Research Center, has become part of all the National Institutes of Health).

The regional nature of ITT implies that the technology transfer carried out by them should be focused primarily on local business, and therefore on supporting the economic, scientific and technological development of their region or their group of regions. In practice, over 40% of licenses for inventions or other intellectual property rights are actually granted to enterprises at their location. However, we are talking about an average statistical indicator, the value of which for specific AUT can vary from 20% to 70% ^{[38, p. 8]}.

The regional nature does not exclude further sectoral (thematic) specialization within specific ITT between their different structural divisions or their staff members. For example, AxLR — Mediterranean Occitania (unites twelve regional and national scientific/scientific and educational organizations operating in the south of France: the University of Montpellier and the National Research Center are the largest participants, plus three more local universities, the National Institute of Health and Medical Research, the National Graduate School of Chemistry of Montpellier technology transfer is organized according to two "strategic thematic poles", which, as indicated in the accounting documentation of this ITT, "reflect the ecosystem of public research" in the region of its operation: the Pole of "Engineering Sciences" ("chemistry, materials and processes"; "mathematics, computer science, physics of systems") and the Pole of "Engineering sciences" ("Chemistry, materials and processes"; "mathematics, computer science, physics of systems"). "Life sciences" ("healthcare and biotechnology"; "agronomy and the environment"; "humanities and social sciences") ^{[39, p. 9]}.

4. The status of a private law corporation. Although the vast majority of scientific/scientific and educational organizations that are part of the ITT act as state institutions (i.e., publicly-owned legal entities), ITTs are created and operate within the framework of French private (more precisely, commercial) law and are corporations in the Russian sense of the word ("Legal entities, founders (participants) which have the right to participate (membership) in them and form their supreme body": Article 65.1 "Corporate and unitary legal entities" of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

According to the sources determining the legal status of the CCT (see the previous section of this article), they are created in the organizational and legal form of a "simplified joint-stock company", briefly SAS (French société par actions simplifiée). In contrast to the usual "joint stock company", briefly SA (French société anonyme), which was provided for in France as early as its first Commercial Code of 1807. (the current Commercial Code was adopted in 2000 in the form of a legislative part, to which a regulatory part was added in 2007, approved by the government), the form of a simplified joint-stock company appeared relatively recently (in 1994) in order to facilitate the establishment of "joint subsidiaries" (French. filiales communes) ^{[40, p. 550]}.

In SAS, compared to SA, participants (members) have a much broader discretion in setting the rules of internal functioning, including determining the size of the authorized capital (one euro is enough, whereas for SA the minimum amount is currently 37 thousand euros). On the other hand, SAS shares cannot be subject to exchange or similar trading on open platforms (SAS, therefore, are always non—public companies).

The statutes of the ITT also invariably add the condition that the admission of new members to them requires the consent of those who already belong to them. Consequently, SSAS in the form of SAS are still closed-type joint-stock companies.

So, de jure and de facto OUTT are nothing more than joint ventures of French scientific institutions, through which the entire range of commercial transactions can be carried out to transfer the technologies they create (as well as to valorize the results of their research in other forms). The sources of the legal status of ITTs and their charters specifically stipulate the authority to conclude trade (commercial) agreements and establish new companies, primarily start-ups.

According to the same documents, ITT can delegate some of its functions to other organizations, guided by the provisions of the Law "On Subcontracting" of 1975 ^[41].

ITT is not prohibited from providing services to third parties (for example, in fulfillment of partnership agreements with scientific research and educational organizations that did not wish to join them). However, such activities should be of an auxiliary nature, and the focus should always be on servicing the participants of this particular OUTT.

For example, in the Charter of the Paris-Saclay Institute (participants from among scientific/scientific and educational organizations: the University of Paris-Saclay, the Paris Polytechnic Institute and the National Research Center), this condition is stated as follows:

"The Society is a society for accelerating technology transfer (ITT). As part of the valorization of research, the subject of its activities is, directly or indirectly, in France or abroad, the protection, valorization and promotion of innovations, mainly of its participants and, additionally, of its other clients" (art. 2 "The subject of the Company's activities") ^[42].

The actual size of the authorized capital of the ITT, which is paid for by about a third of the state (see below), is capable of reaching significant values with a tendency to further increase. Thus, it is measured in millions of euros for the two above-mentioned AUT: Paris—Saclay AUT has an authorized capital of exactly 1 million euros, and AxLR - Mediterranean Occitania AUT has been increased from 1 million 112 thousand euros to 1 million 202 thousand euros after 2022 as a result of an additional share issue of 90 thousand euros. ^[43].

Finally, the joint-stock form of the ITT makes it possible to differentiate the financial contribution, and hence the influence on the decision—making process of different scientific/scientific and educational organizations: they are higher for larger and richer organizations, and lower for smaller and not so rich ones. For example, according to the charter of the AxLR — Mediterranean Occitania, its two largest participants, the University of Montpellier and the National Research Center, have and pay for 216 and 230 shares, respectively; the remaining ten scientific/scientific educational organizations belonging to this OUTT own from 10 to 42 shares each (nominal value one share — 1 thousand euros).

5. Participation of the central and local administrations. The French public authorities and administrations not only determine the status and provide financial assistance to the ITT, but also — together with scientific/scientific and educational organizations - are part of them as shareholders, promoting the interests of the state as a whole or the relevant region in each of them (although French scientific/scientific and educational organizations, as noted most of them act as state institutions, as independent legal entities, they put their own interests at the forefront, which do not necessarily coincide with the objectives of national/regional scientific, technological, economic and other policies).

The Public Investment Bank represents the national interests in the OUTT. According to the documents defining the legal status of an OUTT, in each OUTT, a Public Investment Bank must control 26-33% of the authorized capital, which is another form of government support for such structures. According to the same documents, the share of the authorized capital of the OUTT controlled by scientific/scientific and educational organizations should be a maximum of 67% (the minimum threshold is not fixed).

To prevent the government from being a mere statistician in the management of the ITT, the above-mentioned documents and, in accordance with them, the charters of each ITT provide that key decisions taken by the Board of the ITT require the consent of the board members appointed by the Public Investment Bank (this includes, in particular, the adoption of the business plan and the annual budget of the ITT, decisions on appropriations in excess of 120 thousand euros, etc.). As for the appointment of the President, the highest official of the ITT, his candidacy requires not only the approval of the board members representing the Public Investment Bank (= the state), but is also considered in advance by the government.

It is also important that when a Public Investment Bank appoints government representatives to the board of a Public Investment Bank, the appointees should come from different departments that are capable of having a different vision for the activities of a Public Investment Bank and can control each other's behavior. Namely, a Public Investment Bank appoints three members of the management Board in each CCT: one represents the Bank itself; the second is the minister in charge of scientific research; the third is the minister in charge of industry.

In total, the board of each CCT should consist of a maximum of thirteen (in exceptional cases, fourteen) people. In addition to three representatives of the state, from three to eight representatives who are participants (shareholders) of scientific/scientific and educational organizations and another representative of the state acting as an independent expert, one or two representatives of local administrations - regions and metropolises (large urban agglomerations) - can become members of the management board if these territorial collectives are part of the The members of the ITT and, as shareholders, also contribute to its financing.

Unlike the central administration, the participation of the local administration in the ITT is optional. For example, in one of the two companies previously taken as an illustration, they exist — the Occitania region and the Mediterranean Montpellier metropolis in the AxLR — Mediterranean Occitania (they control and pay in equal shares, for a total of 9.32% of the authorized capital), in the other they do not exist — in the Paris Sakla."

6. Networking. Shortly after its creation, the OUTT joined together on a voluntary basis into the "OUTT Network" (French. Réseau SATT), which has its own chairman (the president of one of the SATT is elected to this post).

The OUTT network has the status of an association (public association) within the meaning of the Law "On the Association Agreement" of 1901 ^[44].

According to the declaration of establishment dated May 30, 2014, the purpose of the association's activities is "to hold joint events of members in order to increase the effectiveness of their work, make them more well-known and understandable, in particular, by using jointly available funds and jointly informing about their activities; the development of a mechanism personified by the ITT as a whole; representation members in relations with third parties, following the principles that will be established" ^[45].

Conclusion

The effectiveness of any mechanism is judged by the results of its work. The French Societies for Accelerating Technology Transfer (ITT) have them, and the outlook for the future is positive, although not everything initially went smoothly.

On the one hand, as noted, French scientific/scientific and educational organizations, although to varying degrees (the most restrained is the Commissariat for Atomic Energy and Alternative Energy, which has been actively involved in the transfer of its own technologies since the middle of the 20th century), supported the government initiative to create collective structures on a regional basis, which are ITT is all the more important because state financial resources have been promised and continue to be allocated for this initiative.

On the other hand, the same organizations, with rare exceptions, refused to sacrifice their individual transfer offices (where they existed) for OUTT. As a result, the "principle of exclusivity (or exclusivity)" (French: principe d'exclusivité), as the French Court of Auditors calls it ^{[18, p. 29-30]}, was replaced by the opposite principle of non-exclusivity (non-exclusivity), when CCTS are only one of many elements in the national transfer organization. competing with similar mechanisms at the level of the state, regions and within the framework of scientific/scientific and educational organizations themselves.

In the assessment reports of the Senate and the Accounting Chamber, prepared based on the results of the first five-year period of the operation of the ITT, attention was also critically drawn to their "unequal results" (French: resultats inégaux). Some outts got off to a high start, but there were also some that worked inefficiently ^{[18, p. 41; 35, p. 57]}.

Other comments were made by the same government authorities, for example, reproaches (which, however, can be addressed to any technology transfer offices — collective and individual, French and non-French) for short-term vision and planning of the future at the expense of a long-term development strategy, and about the emphasis on purely quantitative (gross) performance indicators, such as the number of licenses granted (sold) to businesses for the use of intellectual property results, including those acquired by foreign companies, hardly contributes to the promotion of national interests.

According to the latest assessment report released at the end of 2024 by one of the French non-governmental think tanks, the ITT today "are on a positive development trajectory," moreover, they have entered the cohort of "the best technology transfer organizations in international comparison," and in some indicators have overtaken their foreign counterparts. For example, each French ITT creates an average of 6.15 startups annually, while in other European countries there are an average of 1.3 startups per university/institute technology transfer office per year.

According to the same report, in other European countries, the vast majority (96%) of technology transfer offices are individual, i.e. they serve the needs of a single scientific/scientific and educational organization. On average, French collective ITTs unite 12 institutions of higher and non-university science and surpass technology transfer offices in other European countries in terms of staff size: on average, 43 employees per ITT compared to the European average of 11 people per office ^[21].

The main trump card of the ITT as a collective technology transfer mechanism is obviously the scale effect it generates: what scientific/scientific and educational organizations used to do or could not fully do on their own (market research, advertising campaigns, etc.), now the staff of their common ITT does for them. The scale effect, but at the national level, enhances the joint activities of the ITT within the framework of their national association (ITT Network).

"The clearest illustration of this," noted the president of the Paris—Saclay ITT and, at the same time, the chairman of the ITT Network at the end of 2024, "is the Tech-365 platform, which provides industry with direct access to more than 450 technology proposals prepared for use by [various - Ed.] ITT. During the Tech-365 events held in July 2024 and thanks to the Tech-365 platform, over 1,100 business meetings of ITT experts with 450 enterprises were organized via videoconference. The goal is to double this amount by 2025" ^[46].

The positive impact of the ITT on the development of technology transfer is also evidenced by the positive feedback from French scientists interviewed by French senators.:

"Genuine teams have been created responsible for accompanying researchers in bringing their [scientific — Auth.] of the project to the final stage and, further, in finding ways to commercialize it <...> Some researchers and entrepreneurs, who were heard by your [Senate Finance Committee — Author] speaker, noted that CCTS are very active in finding projects for valorization, carrying out measures to identify them, which were previously poorly present in universities and scientific organizations. They are [researchers — Auth. They pointed out that in the past, the valorization of their work results took place only when they themselves contacted the competent services of research institutions and organizations.

One of the researchers even stated that without the OUTT, he probably would never have thought about valorizing many of the results of his work. <..Before the advent of the OUTT, researchers, apparently, were not even asked in their laboratories about the prospects for the valorization of their research work <...>

Other [researchers — Auth. We also drew attention to the real commitment of the ITT teams to achieve the goal of transferring the proposed technology, whereas previously the relevant research organizations could be more interested in patenting the results and less interested in their commercial valorization. Attention was also drawn to the ability of those responsible for business development [ITT employees in charge of business relations — Ed.] to understand the content of the activities and needs of enterprises for the use of their proposed projects.

Similarly, attention was drawn to strengthening the professionalism of valorization [results — Auth.] research on the protection and management of intellectual property. For example, OUTT recruited specialized lawyers who were able to build up very deep competencies in some sectors. Specific and potentially very rare types of professions were also created in the country, such as an engineer for patent work" ^{[35, p. 51]}.

The maximum benefits from the creation of the ITT are smaller universities and institutes located far from the main scientific and educational centers of the country, modest in their financial capabilities, in some of which, according to the French Accounting Chamber, only one person was involved in technology transfer before the advent of the ITT ^{[18, p. 60]}.

The pooling of forces and resources in the ITT, therefore, contributes to equalizing the chances of large and small, rich and poor, metropolitan and provincial scientific / scientific and educational organizations, and at the same time to the balanced development of different parts of the country: after all, operating on a regional scale, ITT work mainly with local businesses.

One should not discount such a factor as stimulating joint applied research and development of different universities and research institutes: within each regional ITT for the implementation of complex and interdisciplinary transfer projects requiring the integration of the creative potential of the scientific sector of a particular region, and throughout the country (under the auspices of the ITT Network) to establish interaction between scientific/scientific and educational organizations of different regions.

* *

*

The Strategy of Scientific and Technological Development of the Russian Federation sets the task of creating an effective technology transfer model that meets modern challenges and needs of the Russian Federation, taking into account the best Russian and international practices (see the epigraph to this article). The French societies for accelerating technology transfer (ITT) discussed in this article can be considered an integral part of such a practice. They are not ideal (the ideal is unlikely to be achievable), but they have a number of serious advantages as a legal mechanism for public—scientific partnership to promote scientific achievements in everyday life. Hence, this mechanism deserves to be added to our collection of useful foreign experience, so that, with appropriate changes (to take into account our specifics), we can try to test it on Russian soil — first in an experimental mode, then, perhaps, on an ongoing basis.

The research was carried out within the framework of the strategic academic leadership program "Priority 2030".