IP Strategy Memo — RAIDT / RAIT

To: Portsmouth Research & Innovation Services / Tech Transfer Office
From: Mohammad Ali Akeel, PhD Researcher, School of Organisations, Systems and People
cc: Prof. Mark Xu (lead supervisor), Dr Awais Shakir Goraya, Dr Salem Chakhar
Date: [Insert]
Subject: Proposed IP strategy for the RAIDT framework and RAIT product — request for review and support

1. Purpose of this memo

To propose an IP strategy for the RAIDT research outputs and RAIT product line, and to request the Tech Transfer Office's review, support, and confirmation of ownership and licensing structures. The strategy is designed to (a) protect the University's and originator's interests, (b) maximise commercial leverage, and (c) support a credible standards-track engagement with BSI / ISO / IEEE.

2. The IP-bearing assets

3. Recommended IP stack

I recommend a layered IP strategy combining the following instruments. Patents are deliberately excluded — the rationale is set out in §5.

4. Commercial structures contemplated

Three commercialisation routes are under consideration; the IP stack supports all three.

1. Methodology licensing to audit firms — Big-4 and mid-tier; non-exclusive £150–250k/yr or exclusive £400–600k/yr. Brand licence + methodology licence + training & certification.
2. SaaS / open-core (RAIT) — open-source connector and schema, paid hosted scoring engine and audit reports. Per-tenant subscription.
3. Sector-playbook licensing — paid implementation kits to regulated organisations, with consulting wraparound.

A formative commercial validation step (Innovate UK ICURe Explore) is being prepared in parallel and will inform the choice of primary route.

5. Why patents are not recommended

Filing patents on RAIDT or its scoring methodology is not recommended, for the following reasons:

1. Subject-matter exclusion. Article 52 of the European Patent Convention excludes "schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts" and "methods of doing business" from patentability. RAIDT, as a framework, scoring rubric, and evidence-pack schema, falls within those exclusions. The UKIPO and EPO would refuse on substantive grounds.

2. Loss of novelty. The trilogy of papers (Foundations, Empirical Validation, Interoperable Governance) and Configured Runs manuscript have already disclosed the framework. The UK and EPO have no general grace period for inventor disclosures, so any patent application would fail the novelty test.

3. Enforcement impracticality. A governance methodology is difficult to detect when used internally by audit firms or rebadged by software vendors. Patent litigation costs (£500k–£3m UK) outweigh any realistic recovery.

4. Conflict with standards-track strategy. Standards bodies require royalty-free or FRAND licensing on patents reading on standards. A patent would actively undermine BSI / ISO / IEEE engagement, which is the strongest long-term moat for a methodology of this kind.

5. Cost-benefit. ~£20k+ per filing across major jurisdictions, plus ongoing renewals, with no realistic monetisation route through patent licensing for a methodology asset of this type.

A narrowly-scoped patent could, in future, be considered for specific technical innovations within the RAIT software product — for example, a novel runtime instrumentation method, a cryptographic provenance scheme, or a novel ML-based scoring algorithm — if and when those technical artefacts are built and exhibit genuine inventive step. This is a future decision, not a current one.

6. Immediate decisions requested

1. Owner of record for trade marks. Confirm whether the marks should be registered to the University, to a future spin-out vehicle, or to the originator under a licence-back arrangement. This is the single most important decision; the trade-mark filings should not proceed until confirmed.
2. Trade-mark filing authorisation. Authorise the filing of UK applications for RAIDT (5 classes) and RAIT (3 classes) at a combined fee of ~£640. Specifications are drafted and available for review.
3. Pre-filing clearance search. Either approve in-house clearance or engage the University's preferred trade-mark attorney for a professional UK + EU + US clearance search (estimated £400–800).
4. Copyright notices and assignments. Confirm the standard copyright notice and originator-attribution language for use across RAIDT outputs.
5. Confidentiality framework. Approve a standard NDA template for use in commercial outreach (KTP, Big-4 licensing, ICURe customer-discovery).
6. Spin-out / licensing structure. Begin a parallel conversation about whether a Portsmouth spin-out vehicle is appropriate, and on what equity / licence terms — recognising this decision can wait for ICURe Explore findings.

7. Standards engagement (parallel track)

Independent of the commercial IP decisions above, the originator and supervisors propose to engage:

• BSI — for inclusion of RAIDT in UK AI assurance guidance
• ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42 — for input into ISO/IEC 42001 implementation guidance
• NIST AI RMF working groups — to contribute to the GenAI Profile
• AISI (UK AI Security Institute) — for evaluation methodology contributions

Standards engagement does not require patent or commercial protection but does require the University's approval of the originator's authority to represent the institution in those forums.

8. Risks and mitigations

9. Proposed timeline

10. Request

I would be grateful for a 30-minute meeting at your earliest convenience to discuss this strategy and obtain authorisation for the immediate steps in §6. I am happy to provide the trade-mark specification drafts, the trilogy of papers, the RAID Lab proposal, and any further documentation in advance of the meeting.

Mohammad Ali Akeel
mohammad.akeel@myport.ac.uk
[contact number]