Commercialising Knowledge Assets Fund (CKAF) Spring 2026 — Historical Grant Reference for UK Government Research Organisations

The Commercialising Knowledge Assets Fund (CKAF) Spring 2026 competition is closed. The official UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) opportunity page records the closing deadline as 7 May 2026 at 11:00am UK time and labels the opportunity “Closed”. This entry is therefore a historical reference, not an invitation to submit a late application. The deadline in the front matter is the genuine closing date for the completed Spring round; it is not a guessed date for a future call.

UKRI has also published a separate CKAF autumn competition. That is a different opportunity and should be checked on its own official page by anyone looking for an active route. It does not make the Spring application page open again, and the Spring page should not be used to submit a new application.

Verified details for the Spring 2026 round

The fund was intended to help organisations move viable public sector Knowledge Assets towards commercialisation. The Innovation Funding Service describes a Knowledge Asset as an intangible asset held by the organisation. Examples given in the official competition include know-how, expertise, intellectual property rights for designs, research and development outputs, source code and creative outputs. The proposal had to start with an identified, pre-existing asset rather than a request to create a new asset through fundamental research.

What the grant was designed to support

CKAF was aimed at the difficult stage between having a credible public-sector asset and having a realistic route to wider use. The proposal needed to explain the asset as it existed at application, the work already completed, the need for further development, and the plausible market or user group that could benefit from it. The competition was technology agnostic and invited applications across sectors, but the asset had to have identified potential markets and the project had to move beyond business as usual for the applicant.

That distinction matters. A team could not use the Spring grant simply to continue ordinary delivery, maintain an existing service, or perform fundamental research to create a new Knowledge Asset. The official rules excluded projects that only benefited the applicant organisation or its existing customers and users, projects that subsidised business-as-usual activity unless they addressed new markets or customers, and proposals for an existing commercial entity that was not an eligible government research organisation. The fund was also not intended to give an organisation a selective commercial or economic advantage from the project outputs.

The strongest archive-level description of the intended work is therefore practical: establish what the asset is, demonstrate why an external market or user need exists, clarify ownership and exploitation rights, and use a bounded project to improve commercial readiness. That could involve technical development, market evidence, intellectual property work, user or customer discovery, or preparation for a route such as licensing, partnership or another form of transfer. The application had to show the connection between the proposed activities, the asset’s current position and a credible next stage.

Eligibility

The Spring competition accepted single applicants. The grant was awarded to and administered by the applicant organisation. To lead a project, the organisation had to be UK registered and fit one of the categories set out by UKRI and GOTT:

• A Public Sector Research Establishment (PRSE).
• A UKRI wholly owned institute.
• Another public sector body meeting GOTT’s standard eligibility criteria, such as an arms-length body that undertakes research as a primary function.

The applicant also needed ownership of the identified Knowledge Asset and the rights needed to use and commercially exploit relevant intellectual property. Any complicated ownership position, background intellectual property, third-party contributions and foreground intellectual property expected from the work had to be explained in the application. A senior organisational letter of support was required, and the project needed credible support from the people responsible for finance, business development, Knowledge Asset or intellectual property management, procurement and delivery where those functions were relevant.

The project work had to take place in the UK and the proposal had to intend to exploit the results from or in the UK. The official rules also required a project duration of 6, 12 or 18 months and a total eligible grant request between £50,000 and £250,000. The award could cover 100% of eligible project costs, but applicants still had to provide a costed and justified plan that represented value for money. The rules did not turn the fund into unrestricted cash: only eligible costs could be claimed, and the budget had to match the work described.

Universities and academic institutions, local governments and their organisations, local Enterprise Partnerships, devolved administrations and organisations overseen by the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland governments, public corporations, and NHS secondary and tertiary care sectors were among the organisations identified as not eligible. Government departments and their arms-length bodies were also excluded where research was not a primary function. An organisation that was unsure of its category needed to resolve that question before applying rather than relying on a broad description such as “public sector”.

Subcontractors were allowed. They could be based anywhere in the UK and had to be selected through the applicant’s usual procurement process. Overseas subcontracting required a justification for why suitable UK expertise could not be used. Costs had to be proportionate, justified and appropriate to the eligible project costs, and the funding secretariat could reject a project if it concluded that the work would disproportionately benefit a subcontractor.

What the Spring application required

Applications were submitted through the Innovation Funding Service. The official Spring competition page is now closed, so there is no live submission route for this round. The following is a record of what applicants were asked to prepare, not a checklist for a late submission.

The application had three broad parts: project details, application questions and finances. All questions had to be answered. The initial compulsory questions covered the applicant’s registered location, animal testing, permits and licences, international collaboration, export controls, Trusted Research and Innovation considerations, and how the applicant heard about CKAF. The Knowledge Asset section then asked about previous GOTT support, other GOTT advice, the asset’s current state, commercial development, intellectual property ownership and organisational support.

The proposal needed to assess the asset and the project against the Commercialisation Readiness Framework. Applicants selected starting and predicted endpoint positions for Knowledge Asset development, commercial development, intellectual property development and organisational support. They also described the proposed project, its objectives, the need it addressed, how the funding would move the asset towards commercialisation, the consequences of not funding the work, benefits to the UK, and the next steps after a successful project.

The project team and risk section required the team’s technical, managerial, commercial, project-management and delivery experience. Applicants had to identify risks, mitigations, contingency arrangements for staffing or delays, subcontractor management and any reputational risks to the organisation or GOTT. The costing section required a value-for-money explanation, a narrative justification and a completed CKAF Application Project Breakdown spreadsheet covering expenditure and invoicing forecasts. The official instructions highlighted competitive quotes, resource constraints, outsourcing or subcontracting rates, efficiency, timelines and evidence for any overhead calculation.

Supporting documents mattered. The lead organisation had to attach a senior letter of support as a PDF no larger than 10MB, no more than two A4 pages and legible at 100% zoom, with the signatory’s title included. Up to three external letters of support could accompany the project proposal, each subject to the competition’s file requirements. The project breakdown template had to be completed and uploaded as a spreadsheet no larger than 10MB. Applicants were told not to include website addresses in their application answers, and they had to mark every assigned section complete, accept the terms and conditions and resubmit any reopened application before the closing time.

Assessment and delivery information preserved by the official guidance

GOTT first assessed applications for eligibility. Eligible applications were then assessed and scored by three independent panellists, with the scores combined for ranking. The stated assessment areas were commercialisation potential, potential impact, a rapid and realistic route towards commercialisation, project design and delivery, the team, project management, risk and mitigation, value for money and the added value of the grant. Applicants that ranked highly enough could be invited to an online panel interview with a four-minute pitch followed by questions. This is useful context for interpreting the closed competition, but it is not evidence that a Spring application can still be reopened.

The official Innovation Funding Service record set out Spring project timing separately from the application deadline. Proposed projects were required to start between 1 September 2026 and 1 October 2026, with a duration of 6, 12 or 18 months, and could not start before GOTT received a signed Grant Offer Letter. Applicants who received an offer had to complete project setup through a dedicated IFS portal, including mandatory organisational and cost checks. These conditions describe the completed round’s requirements and should not be read as a current invitation to apply.

How to use this archive entry now

If you are researching a past CKAF decision, use the UKRI Spring page and the linked Innovation Funding Service record as the primary references. They establish the Spring status, funding range, eligibility summary, application structure and closing deadline. Keep the distinction between a Knowledge Asset and a new research idea clear: the Spring competition required an existing asset with a plausible potential market and a project that moved it towards commercialisation.

If you are seeking funding now, do not send materials to the Spring page or treat the retained deadline as live. UKRI separately lists a CKAF autumn competition with its own page, status and rules. Read that current competition from the beginning, because a later call may change dates, available funding, eligibility wording, supporting documents or assessment arrangements. The Autumn page is at UKRI’s CKAF autumn opportunity.

For any future CKAF application, the useful preparation remains concrete: document the asset and its ownership, gather evidence of an external need, choose a plausible commercialisation route, define measurable work packages, secure senior organisational support, and build a budget that follows the work. Confirm the active competition’s official closing time and application instructions before relying on any archived summary. This page preserves the verified Spring 2026 record so that readers can understand what that round asked for without mistaking it for an open funding window.