Presenting Intellectual Property (IP) in Horizon Europe proposals

In Horizon Europe proposals, Intellectual Property (IP) management is a decisive factor that influences both the evaluation and future sustainability of the project. Evaluators assess not only the innovative potential of the idea but also how applicants plan to protect, manage and exploit the knowledge generated. The treatment of IP should therefore be coherent, realistic, and aligned with the project’s objectives, the consortium’s strategy and the expected impact pathways. The way IP is presented depends fundamentally on whether relevant IP formally exists at the time of proposal submission or will be developed during the project. The two situations require distinct, yet complementary, approaches.

---

1. When IP Already Exists at the Time of Application

If the project builds upon pre-existing intellectual assets, such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, design rights, proprietary data, software, or trade secrets, these should be clearly identified and documented. The European Commission expects transparency regarding ownership, access and usage rights, as well as a credible plan for managing them throughout the project.

Key Elements to Include

• Description of background IP. Provide a concise but precise overview of the pre-existing IP relevant to the proposed work. This may include patent numbers, publication references, or other formal registrations. Clearly distinguish between assets owned by project partners and those licensed from third parties.

• Ownership and access rights. Define who owns what and on what terms the IP will be made available to the consortium. This is crucial for the section Implementation, as it determines how background knowledge supports project activities.

• Exploitation and Freedom to Operate. Demonstrate that the consortium has the freedom to operate using the background IP and that potential conflicts with third-party rights have been considered. Supporting evidence such as patent landscaping or prior art searches can reinforce credibility.

• Contribution to innovation and impact. Link the background IP directly to the project’s expected outcomes and impacts. Explain how existing assets enable faster innovation, reduce development risk, or enhance the commercialisation potential of results.

2. When IP Will Be Generated During the Project

For most Horizon Europe projects, particularly in R&I actions, the key intellectual assets will emerge as results of the funded activities. In this case, the proposal should focus on demonstrating foresight and preparedness for managing future IP.

Key Elements to Include

• Anticipated results and potential IP. Describe what types of IP are expected to arise: patents, know-how, software, data, designs, or other forms. Even if details are uncertain, outline the potential scope and significance of such results in terms of innovation and market value.

• Ownership and management strategy. Define how ownership of newly generated IP (foreground) will be allocated among partners. Reference the future Consortium Agreement (CA), which will formalise these arrangements. The proposal should show that partners understand the default IP rules under the Horizon Europe Model Grant Agreement and are prepared to adapt them to their specific context if needed.

• Protection and exploitation plan. Outline the approach to IP protection, including provisional filing strategies, confidentiality management and internal decision-making processes for exploitation. Evaluators look for credible mechanisms ensuring that results are not lost due to lack of foresight or internal coordination.

• Dissemination vs. protection balance. Acknowledge the importance of open science and dissemination obligations, while explaining how these will be balanced with protection needs. Refer to publication review procedures and the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) where appropriate.

• Sustainability beyond the project. Indicate how IP management contributes to post-project exploitation, including potential licensing, spin-offs, or standardisation efforts. This strengthens the Impact section and demonstrates alignment with Horizon Europe’s long-term value creation goals.

3. Best Practices for Integrating IP Throughout the Proposal

Regardless of whether IP exists or will be generated, IP-related considerations should appear coherently across the three main evaluation criteria:

• Excellence – Clarify how IP supports innovation potential and the state-of-the-art advancement.

• Impact – Demonstrate how IP will underpin exploitation, market uptake and societal benefits.

• Implementation – Show that roles, responsibilities and procedures for IP management are well-defined and feasible.

Effective presentation of IP in a Horizon Europe proposal is not merely a formality; it is an essential component of the project’s credibility, sustainability, and strategic coherence.

• When IP already exists, the focus should be on transparency, access and integration into project objectives.

• When IP will be generated, the emphasis should shift to preparedness, governance and long-term exploitation potential.

A well-articulated IP strategy signals maturity, risk awareness and commitment to value creation, qualities that resonate strongly with evaluators and significantly enhance the chances of funding success.