International R&D and Patent Ownership: Who Owns the Invention?

International R&D and Patent Ownership: Who Owns the Invention?

International research and development (R&D) projects are now at the center of commercial companies’ growth strategies. In sectors such as technology, pharmaceuticals, defense, software, automotive, and medical devices, a single product can involve teams, universities, startups, and suppliers from multiple countries at once. While this multi-actor structure accelerates discovery and innovation, it also raises one fundamental patent question: “Who owns the invention?”

In patent law, the basic rule is straightforward: the initial owner of a patent is the inventor. However, in international R&D the inventors are usually working within employment relationships, joint projects, or funding frameworks. So real ownership is determined by a combination of employment contracts, project agreements, national legal regimes, and any assignment/licensing clauses signed by the parties. This is why patent ownership in cross-border R&D cannot be solved only by asking “Who invented it?” Instead, you have to ask: “Who acquired rights, under which law, and through which contract?”

Below, I examine the issue systematically from a corporate perspective, highlighting key cross-country differences and practical solutions.

---

A) The Core Principle: Patent Ownership Starts with the Inventor

In many legal systems, the first ownership vests in the inventor. Transfer to an employer or project partner happens only through an explicit assignment or through special statutory rules. Even in jurisdictions with public-funding regimes (such as the U.S. Bayh-Dole structure), the logic remains the same: rights arise in the inventor first; the employer gains ownership only if there is a clear assignment.

In practice, this means:

If there is no contract or assignment mechanism in place, a company does not automatically become the patent owner simply because it financed the project.

---

B) Employee Inventions: The First Major Ownership Domain in International R&D

In most international projects, the inventors are engineers or researchers employed by a company. Whether an invention is categorized as an “employee/service invention,” and how rights move to the employer, depends on national law.

Türkiye (general structure):
Employee inventions are regulated under a specific statutory regime. Typically, if an invention is made within the scope of employment, the employee must notify the employer. The employer can claim rights within a defined period; if it does, ownership transfers to the employer, and the employee is entitled to fair compensation.

Germany (general structure):
Germany’s Employee Inventions Act follows a similar logic: the inventor must report a service invention; the employer must claim rights within a statutory time window or the invention becomes free; if claimed, rights transfer to the employer and the employee receives appropriate remuneration.

These examples show that:

• In many countries, employee inventions are built on a disclosure–claim–compensation triangle.
• But timelines, compensation formulas, definitions, and sanctions vary from country to country.

Corporate takeaway:
A company engaged in international R&D cannot rely solely on internal policy. It must separately analyze whether ownership transfers under the specific law governing each inventor’s employment.

---

C) Joint R&D: Inventions Developed by Multiple Companies

Another common scenario is a joint project between two or more companies. Here, the issue is often not “who owns it” but “in what shares and under what usage rules ownership is shared.”

Three main ownership models appear in practice:

1. Single-owner model
   One party owns the patent; the other receives a license.
   • Advantage: faster management and commercialization.
   • Risk: the licensee may feel strategically dependent.
2. Joint ownership model
   The patent is jointly owned by the parties.
   • Advantage: parties perceive contribution-benefit balance as fair.
   • Risk: joint-ownership rules differ dramatically across jurisdictions.
     In some countries, one co-owner cannot license without the other’s consent; in others, licensing is allowed but revenue sharing is mandatory. If these differences are not contractually clarified, disputes are likely.
3. Foreground split model
   Ownership follows actual contribution: whoever invents owns.
   • Advantage: directly reflects technical input.
   • Risk: disputes over “who contributed how much” can escalate.

Golden rule for companies:

Without separating foreground IP (project outputs) from background IP (pre-existing rights brought into the project), safe ownership cannot be established in joint R&D.

---

D) University and Public-Funded R&D: Bayh-Dole Logic and Its Global Reflections

A further major field is university–industry collaboration and publicly funded research. In the U.S., the Bayh-Dole framework allows universities and small businesses receiving federal funding to retain rights under certain conditions and to commercialize inventions. Yet, the inventor-first logic and assignment necessity remain central.

Because many countries design their funding schemes with similar logic, public-funded international R&D requires careful attention to:

• Does the funding body reserve march-in rights or a usage license?
• Are there commercialization priority or revenue-sharing obligations?
• Do university employee inventions transfer automatically to the university, or is a separate assignment required?

Corporate takeaway:
In public/university projects, ownership is not just a bilateral matter between company and partner—funding conditions become a third controlling layer.

---

E) Conflict of Laws in International Teams

The country where the invention is made, the country governing employment, the country of patent filing, and the chosen governing law in the project agreement may all be different. This creates a classic conflict-of-laws problem.

Typical examples:

• A Türkiye-based engineer and a Germany-based team co-develop the same invention.
• The project contract chooses English law, but the patent is filed in the U.S.
• One jurisdiction treats it as a service invention; another does not.

Therefore, drafting cross-border R&D contracts is not only about choosing one law. Corporations usually add two safety layers:

1. Separate invention-assignment undertakings from every inventor
   (e.g., future inventions assignment clauses signed at project entry.)
2. A compliance clause recognizing mandatory national employee-invention rules
   (because many employee-invention regimes are mandatory and cannot be waived by contract.)

---

F) Contract Clauses That Secure Ownership Smoothly

Best-practice clauses in international R&D agreements include:

• Inventorship determination procedure:
  How inventors will be identified and who decides.
• Assignment clause:
  When and to whom inventors assign rights.
• Background vs. Foreground IP:
  Clear separation of pre-existing rights and project outputs.
• Joint ownership rules:
  If co-ownership exists, how licensing, enforcement, and revenue sharing work.
• Improvements ownership:
  Who owns post-project upgrades and derivative inventions.
• Publication & confidentiality:
  Whether academic publication happens before or after filing; how long secrecy lasts.
• Exit & continuation:
  What happens if one party withdraws; who continues ownership and filings.

These may look like “legal details,” but in cross-border projects they decide the commercial destiny of the patent.

---

G) Conclusion: Patent Ownership in International R&D Is a Triangle of “Contract + Statute + Contribution”

Summarizing from a corporate lens:

1. Patent rights arise with the inventor first; transfer depends on assignment or statutory regimes.
2. Employee inventions are governed by mandatory rules that differ by country.
3. Joint R&D requires a pre-selected ownership model, or disputes emerge later.
4. Funding and university rules add extra ownership conditions.
5. Conflict-of-laws risks must be controlled through multi-layer assignments and jurisdiction-aware compliance clauses.

So the correct corporate approach is:

Before starting international R&D, lock in who will own which inventions and how commercialization will run. This is as important as the technological success of the project itself.