Institutions of undergraduate and graduate studies are in an extremely competitive environment, facing new technologies and the continuous government investment reductions in research and development. They must interact constantly with several governmental institutions and private entities searching partnerships in order to make feasible basic and applied research. On the other hand, these efforts contribute to the technological advancement of the country, improving its competitiveness to face the inevitable economy´s globalization, throw technological transfers and innovation. In this context, the significance and maintenance of intellectual properties (IP) policies become a requisite for the survival of any institution that invests in technological development research. It also represents a mandatory condition for the success of knowledge transfer for the benefits to the sustainability of Brazilian organizations and the insertion of itself in the marketplace, taking into account the global competitiveness rules and proving at the same time that the receipt of resources that assist research activities were well worth it. This is a challenge, especially in the case of IES since they are organizations that have specific characteristics that may not be the best scenario for IP policies. For the private IES, this can represent an essential path for the sustainment of its research activities, given the growing need for themselves generating its own resources. The objective of this research at is to identify organizational requisites, opportunities and difficulties for the implementation o IP policies in a private managed IES in Brazil. The Case study is the case of PUCRio, one of the most traditional research institutions in the country. The methodology bases on the perception of different individuals involved in research and development activities. The results point that it does not have a homogeneity concerning the importance and problematic of IP management between the participants of the research, as well as predominates the opinion of that the creation and implementation of IP policies cannot be something determined vertically, top down, by the institution, but should come about or be accepted by its own research and development activities actors, and that its implementation occurs after extensive debate between them.