IP Ownership Across Borders: The Assignment Gap

Navigating IP Ownership Across Borders: The Assignment Gap

In today's interconnected business landscape, complex-structure operators often face unique challenges when it comes to intellectual property (IP) ownership. A common scenario is the development of code or creation of valuable IP in one jurisdiction, while the entity claiming ownership resides in another. This situation frequently lacks formal assignment or licensing agreements, leading to ambiguous ownership rights. Understanding these structural intricacies is crucial for those managing multi-entity operations.

The Complexity of Multi-Entity Structures

The structural pattern of a multi-entity setup involves multiple business entities spread across various jurisdictions. These structures often evolve over time, reacting to business needs rather than following a pre-designed plan. This organic growth can result in unclear boundaries between entities, complicating the management of assets like IP. The structure indicates potential risks where ownership and control might not align, particularly when IP is developed in one location but claimed by another.

Holding Company Risks in IP Ownership

A holding company often serves as the central entity in a multi-entity structure, managing assets such as IP. This pattern suggests potential risks when IP is created in a different jurisdiction without a formal transfer to the holding company. Without proper assignment agreements, it's unclear whether the holding company holds legitimate ownership rights over the IP. This gap can lead to disputes, especially if the IP's value becomes significant.

Cross-Border Entity Setup and IP Ambiguity

Entities operating across borders face the challenge of differing legal frameworks and regulations. This dimension maps to the ambiguity of IP ownership when code is written in one jurisdiction and owned by an entity in another. The lack of formal agreements can mean that IP rights are not clearly transferred, leaving the actual ownership in question. This complexity requires a detailed understanding of each jurisdiction's requirements to clarify ownership.

Contractor vs. Employee Classification and IP Rights

The classification of workers—whether as contractors or employees—across different jurisdictions adds another layer of complexity to IP ownership. Contractors typically retain the rights to their creations unless an agreement explicitly states otherwise. In contrast, IP created by employees is generally owned by the employer. Founders in this position often find it challenging to navigate these classifications across borders, impacting IP ownership clarity.

Evolving Entity Structures and IP Ownership

Entity structures that have evolved organically rather than by design may lack the formal agreements necessary to secure IP rights. This pattern suggests a structural misalignment where IP developed in one entity isn't formally transferred to the owning entity. The absence of clear, documented IP assignments or licenses can create vulnerabilities, especially if these entities span multiple jurisdictions with varying legal standards.

Conclusion: The Importance of Structural Visibility

The assignment gap in IP ownership across borders is a critical issue for complex-structure operators. Structural visibility into how entities are organized and how assets like IP are managed can illuminate potential risks and ambiguities. By mapping these intersections, operators can gain a clearer understanding of their multi-entity structure, enabling them to address gaps and reinforce their IP ownership claims effectively.

How Assignment Gaps Create Tax Exposure

The tax implications of an IP assignment gap extend beyond ownership ambiguity. When IP sits in an entity that did not develop it and no formal transfer has occurred, the structure indicates a transfer pricing exposure that tax authorities in multiple jurisdictions may scrutinize independently.

Transfer pricing rules generally require that transactions between related entities occur at arm's length — at prices comparable to what unrelated parties would negotiate. When IP is developed in one country but claimed by an entity in another without a documented transfer at fair market value, the developing jurisdiction may argue that it is owed taxable income for the creation of that asset. Simultaneously, the claiming jurisdiction may treat the IP as having zero cost basis, inflating taxable gains on any future licensing or sale.

Royalty payments add another layer. If the entity claiming IP ownership licenses it back to the entity where development occurred, withholding tax obligations may arise in both jurisdictions. This pattern suggests that founders who assume a simple parent-subsidiary relationship resolves IP ownership often discover that royalty withholding obligations were accumulating quietly, sometimes for years, before anyone identified the gap.

The Contractor Angle: Default IP Ownership Under Local Law

The intersection of contractor classification and IP ownership introduces jurisdiction-specific default rules that many founders do not anticipate. In most common law jurisdictions — the US, UK, Australia — IP created by an independent contractor belongs to the contractor unless a written agreement assigns it to the commissioning party. The work-for-hire doctrine, where it exists, applies narrowly and typically does not cover software or creative works produced by contractors.

Civil law jurisdictions often take a different approach. In some, moral rights to creative works remain with the individual creator regardless of contractual terms. In others, the economic rights may transfer to the commissioning party by default, but only if specific statutory conditions are met. Founders engaging contractors in multiple countries face a patchwork of default ownership rules, each governed by the contractor's local law rather than the founder's home jurisdiction.

This dimension maps to a practical gap: a founder in the US who engages a developer in Germany and a designer in Brazil may assume that standard contractor agreements govern all three relationships identically. The structure indicates otherwise. Without jurisdiction-specific assignment clauses, the founder's entity may not own the IP it believes it controls. This gap typically surfaces during due diligence for fundraising or acquisition, where the absence of clear assignment documentation can materially affect valuation.

---

Visual: The IP Assignment Gap

Key Takeaways

• IP developed in one jurisdiction and claimed by an entity in another without formal assignment or licensing agreements creates ambiguous ownership that may not withstand legal scrutiny.
• Contractor-created IP is generally retained by the contractor unless explicitly assigned; employee-created IP typically belongs to the employer — misclassification directly impacts who owns what.
• Holding companies claiming IP ownership without formal transfer agreements, physical assets, or operational substance face increasing jurisdictional scrutiny.

Check your risk profile →