When a project has more than one owner, the question stops being what was developed and becomes who developed what, when, and under which agreement. Lotik records that answer immutably, from day one of the project — before there is a dispute, an audit or a patent filing.
A funder, an industrial partner, an ethics committee, a patent office or a court. In every case the requirement is the same: demonstrate contribution, ownership and compliance with verifiable evidence — not with institutional memory.
A joint lab accelerates development and multiplies IP exposure. Technical background goes into the project, results come out under joint ownership, and the line between the two has to be documented before the first licensing negotiation.
The transfer office answers for institutional ownership and for invention disclosure deadlines. When the invention comes out of a project with an industrial partner, reconstructing who contributed what usually happens months later, from scattered emails and lab notebooks.
Public funding brings periodic reporting, IP protection targets and audits. The more partners in the consortium, the costlier each consolidation round becomes — and the greater the risk of divergence between what was reported and what was executed.
The asymmetry is structural: on one side, a startup whose only asset is its technology; on the other, a corporation with a dedicated legal team. Without a neutral record of what each party brought into the proof of concept, the post-pilot negotiation stalls — and the program loses its best startups before the contract.
The four scenarios below map real funding programs in Brazil, the United States, Europe and Asia. In each one, a formal obligation of traceability, ownership or accountability already exists — and is met manually today.
Multiple institutions, public money, IP protection targets and a funder that audits. Ownership of results must be demonstrable at the end — and built from the start.
Under Horizon Europe, results belong to the beneficiary that generates them, and joint ownership arises when individual contributions cannot be clearly separated. The program requires a Results Ownership List in the final report: without it, submission is blocked and the final payment does not go through. Proving separation of contributions stops being good practice and becomes a condition for payment.
In Brazil, FAPESP’s Intellectual Property Policy requires the host institution to submit an annual report by 31 March listing the IP protected in the period, with filing date, title, inventors, institutional affiliation and owners. At EMBRAPII, IP is negotiated directly between the contracting company and the accredited Unit, under the rules of its Operating Manual.
An immutable record of each partner’s contribution from conception, with a verifiable hash and versioned agreements. The ownership list and the funder report are generated from the project record — not reconstructed from memory and spreadsheets in the month the deadline falls.
Joint labs generate high-value IP under long-term agreements. The asset is the separation between what each side brought in and what was created together.
The National Science Foundation’s IUCRC program runs on a standard membership agreement whose terms are non-negotiable. Under clause E, all IP derived from inventions conceived at the center belongs to the universities, which answer for Bayh-Dole compliance; under clause F, every center member is entitled to a non-exclusive, royalty-free license. Each member company accesses the center’s IP — which only works if the origin of each result is traceable.
In Singapore, A*STAR runs joint labs with industrial partners whose expected outcome, according to the agency itself, is the generation of new intellectual property and new product lines for the companies involved. In Brazil, FAPESP’s Engineering Research Centers combine the CEPID model with PITE, with a co-funding partner company actively involved in defining the topics and the use of results.
A recorded boundary between background and foreground IP for each partner, with differentiated permissions over sensitive data and cryptographic proof of authorship per contribution. Licensing negotiations start from a shared record, not from conflicting versions of the same story.
Short pilots, high legal asymmetry and one asset — the startup’s technology — entering the program with no recorded timestamp.
Brazil’s Startup Legal Framework requires the Public Contract for Innovative Solutions to define, among other clauses, ownership of the intellectual property rights over the resulting creations and the share in the results of their exploitation, plus periodic progress reports that serve as a monitoring instrument. The evidentiary obligation is in the contract from signature.
The same design repeats in corporate open innovation programs with no specific legal basis: a proof of concept lasting a few months, a mixed team, and no neutral evidence of which technology the startup already held before joining. That is where the post-pilot negotiation stalls — and the cost falls on the side with less legal structure.
An immutable timestamp for the asset each party brings in, before the pilot starts, with a symmetrical record verifiable by both sides. Progress reports generated from the project record itself, in the format the contracting party requires.
The transfer office has a statutory deadline to disclose inventions to the funder. Missing it can cost ownership of the invention itself.
In the United States, the standard patent rights clause under Bayh-Dole requires the institution to disclose each invention to the funding agency within two months of the inventor disclosing it in writing to patent personnel. The regulatory clock therefore starts running on an internal document. If the institution fails to disclose, to elect title or to file within the deadlines, the federal agency may take ownership.
A GAO report published in April 2026 records that recipients point to compliance difficulties: inconsistent requirements across agencies, time-consuming annual utilization reports and delays in extension requests. The same report notes that the iEdison system, managed by NIST, does not require a standardized invention disclosure form — which produces incomplete submissions and increases review time.
The internal invention disclosure carries a verifiable cryptographic timestamp at the moment it happens. The transfer office no longer depends on documentary reconstruction to demonstrate timeliness, and the contribution history sustains the determination of inventorship in the filing.
The programs and bodies cited on this page appear as context for how the platform applies, and as references to the public rules governing collaborative R&D projects. Their mention implies no institutional link, partnership or endorsement of Lotik. Links verified in August 2026.
Book a conversation so we can understand your context and show you the platform in action.