Pre-existing know-how will always remain the property of the contractor who has brought it into the project, although access rights to the pre-existing know-how shall be granted to other contractors where the holder is free to grant them and they are necessary to carry out the project or for use purposes.

Broadly speaking, the results of the project (knowledge) are the property of the contractor who has generated them.

However, there will be situations where it will not be easy to determine ownership, due to the fact that different contractors have worked together on the results:

- Where several contractors have jointly carried out work generating such results and their respective share of the work cannot be ascertained, they shall have joint ownership thereof. However, they shall agree among themselves on the allocation and terms of exercising the ownership of the knowledge in accordance with the FP6 model contract. This can be established, for example, in the consortium agreement or, better still, in a separate agreement.

For example, contractors should agree on:

- The assigning of share of the rights;

- Cost sharing;

- Management of the jointly owned IPR, if so:

(Obtaining and maintaining patents and other intellectual property rights in effect. Payment of fees for registration, maintaining procedures - in which country and from whose account);

- Responsibility for detecting and taking civil or criminal actions against third parties who in any way infringe the IPR;

- Licensing third parties to use the knowledge;

- Decision-making processes;

- Marketing of the knowledge;

- Possible creation of a new entity in charge of the management of the IPR, etc.

For further information, you may refer to : Joint Ownership in IPR (updated)

- Regarding cooperative (CRAFT) or collective research projects, the results will be the joint property of the SMEs or enterprise groupings, which shall agree on the allocation and terms of exercising such ownership of the knowledge in conformity with the provisions of the model contract. This can be established, for example, in the consortium agreement.

• Joint Ownership in IPR (updated)

Notwithstanding the basic rule that each contractor shall have ownership of the knowledge it generates (article II.32.1 of Annex II), contractors are free to decide that they will share the ownership of every piece of knowledge generated during the project.

The provisions concerning the conditions for exercising joint ownership may be included in the consortium agreement of the project. Alternatively, it may be simply stated that knowledge shall be the property of all contractors and that specific agreements shall be reached on a case-by-case basis regarding the allocation and exercise of joint ownership.

This is a sensitive issue that all contractors must consider carefully, but which is particularly important for universities or public research bodies, which may have specific rules regarding ownership of the results generated by employees, researchers or collaborators.

In the case of a specific piece of knowledge generated by the personnel of a contractor who, according to contractual or national legal provisions, may claim rights to such knowledge, the contractor shall take steps or reach appropriate agreements to ensure that these rights are exercised in a manner that is compatible with its obligations under the project and towards the other contractors.

The same thing applies to doctoral students and other persons who work without being employees and whose rights must also be considered.

It is therefore important to have clear ideas and commitments included in the consortium agreement, to ensure that in any case, whatever the particular rules a contractor has to respect in relation to internal staff (employees and any other person that is not an employee but works for the contractor, like doctoral students, temporary collaborators or personnel on temporary secondment, trainees or grant holders, etc.), it is in compliance with the FP6 obligations at all times.

In relation to subcontractors, the same rule should apply to them. That is to say, contractors must ensure that subcontractors' relationships also comply with both the terms of the consortium agreement and the terms of the EC contract.

Principally, under the Sixth Framework Programme, a participant's knowledge and its means of protection, belong to him. An exception is knowledge resulting from direct actions (carried out by the JRC) and a few indirect actions (SSA governed by the terms applicable to public procurement procedures, or those for evaluation and similar procedures), which belongs to the EC.

Participants have a duty to provide "adequate and effective" IP protection for their own knowledge. In the event that the Commission considers protection is not sufficient, it may intervene. Additional cases are where a participant does not want to seek IP rights in a particular country, or does not want to pay the renewal fee required to maintain an IP registration in force. The model contract with the Commission requires participants to inform the Commission in the above-mentioned cases. The Commission then may request any rights the participant does not want to be assigned to it giving the Commission the right to protect them in the Commission's name. The participant is entitled to object to such as assignment if "it can demonstrate that its legitimate interests will be significantly impaired".