U.S. Common Intellectual Property Law In accordance with Article VI of the Lusaka Agreement, ARIPO may seek cooperation with non-member state governments and other organizations and institutions that wish to help ARIPO or its members achieve their goals. The owner of the inventions and intellectual property rights that flow from them in the context of cooperation and cooperation with an external party is an essential issue that must be clearly defined for all parties involved in the “Intellectual Property Conditions” section of the cooperation agreement. Intellectual property ownership resulting from innovation is the most important problem to be solved. IPAG is a project of the “Universities of Austria”, supported by the National Contact Point for Intellectual Property (ncp.ip) of the Federal Ministry of Science and Research (BMWF), the Federal Ministry of Economy, Family and Youth (BMWFJ), the Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology. Austrian universities and companies have developed these models together to enable an efficient transfer of knowledge and technology. Many businessmen, and even experienced lawyers and practitioners, lack a thorough assessment of what common ownership actually means in practice, but they still accept it because “it seems right” or “it`s always been done that way.” In reality, common ownership of intellectual property is fraught with danger and is contrary to general perception, often unfair and, worse, generally unenforceable. In addition to the IFCAI network, the WIPO centre can rely on specific cooperation agreements with a growing number of other institutions. This includes: Please read the disclaimer in case of www.ipag.at/projekt/download before using the IPAG model agreements. It is very important to recognize that there are several IP protection systems in place. The situation with shared ownership becomes even more complicated when several forms of IP are involved, each with different standard rules. For example, co-owners of a U.S. copyright must share royalties, contrary to U.S.

patent law. Almost all useful products are protected by different forms of intellectual property such as patents, designs, trademarks and copyrights. Such complexity occurs, for example, when software protected by both patents and copyrights is authorized by a co-owner. Co-owners should determine what percentage of the software`s product is exempt from royalty sharing under U.S. patent law and what percentage of the royalty is allowed under U.S. copyright. Personally, I would recommend avoiding common intellectual property like the plague.