Author: Julien Sudre, Horizon Europe grant writing and project management specialist, founder of Grant360 and Innotrope
Intellectual property (IP) in Horizon Europe is managed by identifying pre-existing assets, agreeing on access rights, documenting who generates each result, assessing protection before disclosure, and establishing how results will be used after the project. The Grant Agreement (GA) sets the binding framework; the Consortium Agreement (CA) translates it into practical rules between partners. IP management should begin before the proposal and continue beyond project closure.
This guide explains the operational decisions coordinators, beneficiaries and research teams need to make. For the broader exploitation strategy, see Exploitation and Intellectual Property in Horizon Europe.
What counts as intellectual property in a Horizon Europe project?
IP can arise from software, inventions, designs, publications, datasets, methods and confidential know-how. However, not every project result is automatically an intellectual property right: a result is an output of the action, while legal protection depends on the type of output, applicable law and any required formalities.
For example, source code may be protected by copyright, a patentable technical invention may qualify for patent protection, and a manufacturing process may be kept confidential as a trade secret. A dataset may involve database rights, copyright, contractual restrictions or no exclusive IP right at all. Identify the actual rights rather than assuming that all project outputs can be owned or licensed in the same way.
Practical example: A consortium develops a diagnostic prototype, analysis software and a clinical dataset. These are three distinct assets with potentially different creators, owners, protection routes and permissions for downstream use. Record them separately in the results register.
What is background, and how should partners identify it before the project starts?
Background is data, know-how or information held by a beneficiary before it joins the action that is needed to implement the project or exploit its results, as identified under the applicable agreement. Partners should list relevant background and specify any agreed exclusions or restrictions in writing before work begins.
A background register should identify the asset, controlling organisation, permitted uses, third-party rights, confidentiality restrictions and any licence conditions. Check whether a partner genuinely controls the rights it proposes to make available: possessing a software package or dataset does not necessarily permit sublicensing it to the consortium.
Practical example: A university plans to use a pre-existing image database to train a model. Before the project starts, its team checks whether the original consent, database licence and data-protection arrangements permit the planned research and subsequent exploitation. The consortium records the restrictions instead of assuming that access for research includes commercial reuse.
Who owns results generated during a Horizon Europe project?
As a general rule, the beneficiary that generates a result owns it. Joint ownership arises when two or more beneficiaries jointly generate a result and their contributions cannot be established or separated for protection purposes. Collaboration alone does not automatically make every output jointly owned.
The applicable rules are set out in Regulation (EU) 2021/695, Article 38 and the European IP Helpdesk's Horizon Europe FAQs.
Practical example: Partner A writes a standalone software module and Partner B creates an independently usable testing protocol. Their contributions may be separately owned. If they jointly develop an inseparable invention, they should examine whether joint ownership applies and document the agreed arrangements. Ownership of contributions from employees, students and subcontractors also needs to be checked under the relevant contracts and national law.
How should joint ownership be managed?
Joint owners should conclude a written agreement covering their shares or allocation of rights, protection costs, publication decisions, licensing, revenue distribution, enforcement and exit arrangements. They may agree on a different written ownership arrangement, such as assigning the result to one owner while granting appropriate rights to the others.
Where the applicable Horizon Europe default joint-ownership regime applies and no different arrangement has been agreed, a joint owner may grant a non-exclusive third-party licence without sublicensing rights, subject to advance notice of at least 45 days and fair and reasonable compensation to the other joint owners. Check the signed GA and any CA provisions before relying on this default.
Practical example: Two small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) jointly develop a sensor. Before approaching manufacturers, they agree which entity manages patent filings, who can negotiate licences, how costs and income are shared, and how the other partner's own exploitation remains possible.
What access rights must consortium partners grant?
Access rights allow a beneficiary to use another beneficiary's relevant background or results when needed to perform its project tasks or exploit its own results. They are not a blanket right to use every asset owned by every partner.
Under the standard Horizon Europe framework, access needed for implementation is generally granted royalty-free unless otherwise agreed for background before accession to the GA. Access needed to exploit a beneficiary's own results is generally granted on fair and reasonable conditions, subject to the applicable provisions and any agreed background restrictions. Requests for exploitation access rights are normally made within one year after the action ends unless the beneficiaries agree on a different deadline.
Practical example: Partner B needs Partner A's pre-existing algorithm to perform its assigned tests. The consortium should establish the implementation licence early. If Partner B later wants to sell a product incorporating the algorithm, it must separately verify whether it has the exploitation rights it needs.
See the European IP Helpdesk FAQs on access rights and the project's signed GA and CA for the precise conditions.
What should the Consortium Agreement say about intellectual property?
The CA should turn the GA's general obligations into workable procedures: identify background, allocate responsibilities for results, specify access-right request procedures, address joint ownership, define confidentiality and publication reviews, and establish how partners handle licensing, transfers and disputes. It must remain consistent with the GA.
Rather than copying standard clauses without discussion, run a short scenario workshop: What happens if two partners jointly invent something? Who reviews a conference abstract? What if a spin-off wants an exclusive licence? Who pays to maintain a patent after the grant ends? Record the decisions and ensure the relevant teams know how to apply them.
The Horizon Europe Programme Guide explains the role of the CA in supporting implementation and exploitation.
How do you choose between patents, copyright, trade secrets and open licences?
Choose protection according to the nature of the result, its intended users, the legal requirements and the resources available to maintain the rights. A patent is not automatically the best route, and open dissemination is not automatically incompatible with exploitation.
Possible approaches include:
- Technical invention: patent application where eligible. Check novelty, inventorship, filing costs and territories.
- Software: copyright and proprietary or open-source licence. Check third-party dependencies, contributors and commercial model.
- Confidential process: trade-secret measures. Check whether secrecy can realistically be maintained.
- Dataset: applicable database, copyright and contractual terms. Check data protection, third-party permissions and reuse conditions.
- Brand or product identity: trademark where appropriate. Check ownership, territorial scope and future use.
Practical example: A university releases a research tool under an open-source licence to encourage adoption while protecting a separate hardware invention through a patent application. The decisions can coexist if rights, dependencies and publication timing are checked first.
When should results be protected before publication?
Assess patentability, confidentiality and third-party interests before publicly disclosing potentially protectable results. A conference abstract, preprint, repository upload or public deliverable may count as disclosure and can affect patent novelty, depending on the applicable law and circumstances.
Set up a publication-review workflow: the author submits the proposed disclosure; relevant partners identify confidential information and protectable results; the owner decides whether a filing or other measure is justified; and the consortium then proceeds with dissemination in line with the GA and CA. Do not use review procedures to delay publications without a legitimate basis.
Practical example: Researchers plan to present an innovative sensor architecture at a conference. They send the abstract for internal review before submission, allowing the owner to assess patent filing and agree what technical details can be made public.
How do intellectual property rights interact with open science?
Open-science obligations and IP protection must be planned together. Horizon Europe generally requires open access to peer-reviewed scientific publications and research-data management under the applicable GA conditions, while permitting justified restrictions on data access, for example for legitimate commercial interests, confidentiality or personal-data protection.
The operational sequence is to identify rights and restrictions, assess whether protection is justified, and then publish or share the appropriate material through compliant channels. The principle is as open as possible, as closed as necessary - not that every result must be disclosed without conditions.
For broader guidance on dissemination and uptake, consult the European Research Executive Agency's dissemination and exploitation resources.
How should a consortium track IP decisions during implementation?
Maintain a living results and IP register, reviewed at regular technical and exploitation meetings. Each entry should capture the result, contributing organisations, provisional ownership, background dependencies, protection status, intended users, dissemination restrictions, exploitation pathway and next decision date.
A simple internal dashboard can flag unresolved ownership, missing licences, upcoming publications and protection decisions. These are recommended management practices, not a mandatory set of Commission indicators.
Practical example: Before a month-18 review, the coordinator finds that a software result is ready for public release but still contains a third-party library with incompatible licence terms. The responsible partner resolves the dependency before publishing the repository.
Can a beneficiary transfer or license its results to another organisation?
Yes, subject to the applicable GA obligations and the rights of other beneficiaries. Before a transfer or licence, verify existing access rights, notification or objection requirements, any specific call restrictions and the transferee's ability to honour relevant obligations. Do not assume that transferring ownership extinguishes consortium partners' rights.
Practical example: A beneficiary plans to transfer a prototype to a newly formed spin-off. It checks whether another partner still needs access to the underlying results, whether the transfer requires advance notice, and how continuing obligations will be reflected in the transfer agreement.
Consult the European IP Helpdesk's Horizon Europe FAQs and obtain specialist advice for the specific transaction.
What IP and exploitation obligations continue after the project ends?
Project closure does not automatically end IP-related duties. Beneficiaries must follow the post-project exploitation, access-right, record-retention and other obligations applicable to their signed GA and call conditions. Under the standard framework, beneficiaries must use their best efforts to exploit their results or have them exploited; where results remain unexploited after the period specified in the GA, the relevant Horizon Results Platform obligation may apply unless an exception or waiver is available.
Before closure, confirm ownership, licences, protection maintenance, exploitation responsibilities and contact points for future access requests. Ensure that the final results ownership information required by the project is accurate.
Practical example: A research institute owns a validated method but has no capacity to commercialise it. It documents potential licensing partners, the resources needed for further validation and who will handle follow-up discussions after the project team disbands.
For a wider view of how these decisions fit into the full project lifecycle, read Exploitation and Intellectual Property in Horizon Europe.
Conclusion: What is the practical IP management checklist for Horizon Europe?
Effective IP management starts with a clear background register and a workable CA. During implementation, record contributions and ownership, resolve access-right dependencies, assess protection before disclosure, and link each important result to a credible exploitation route. Before closure, verify that the owners and users of the results can act on those plans and meet any continuing contractual obligations.
The aim is not to maximise the number of patents. It is to make the project's knowledge usable - through research, open sharing, licensing, commercial development or public-interest uptake - without leaving ownership and access questions unresolved.
About the author
Julien Sudre is a Horizon Europe grant writing and project management specialist working on collaborative research and innovation projects, including project implementation, communication and exploitation planning. Through Grant 360, he develops resources and tools to support organisations across the European funding lifecycle.