A review on implementation, ownership and utilization of research and development outcomes under the National Research and Development Innovation Act
Authors:   Institute of Legal Myungji Uiversity, Cho Heerae , Kim Dongjun 
Published: February 2025

The National Research and Development Innovation Act (hereinafter ‘the Act’) was enacted to establish common standards across ministries so that national research and development projects, which are operated differently by each ministry, can be operated in an integrated and systematic manner. This article reviewed the provisions of the Act related to the implementation, ownership, and utilization of research and development (hereinafter ‘R&D’) outcomes and drew the following conclusions.
First, the definition of R&D outcomes is problematic in relation to the principle of ownership of R&D outcomes because it does not distinguish between tangible and intangible outcomes. In addition, some of the specific outcomes listed in the Enforcement Decree of the Act have unclear meanings. The meaning of new varieties or standards should be clarified, and tangible and intangible outcomes should be treated differently in relation to the principle of ownership.
Second, the definition of implementation of R&D outcomes needs to clarify what the object of ‘implementation’ is. The Act includes ‘intellectual property rights’ as intangible R&D outcomes, and the definition of implementation refers to the Patent Act. However, under the Patent Act, the objects of implementation are patented inventions, not patent rights. For this reason, there may be confusion about what the object of an ‘assignment’ is. For example, if the R&D outcome is a patent for an invention of a product, it is unclear whether the object of the ‘assignment’ is the ‘product’ that implements the patented invention or the ‘patent right’ for the invention. In cases where R&D outcomes are intellectual property rights, it is also questionable whether it is appropriate to define ‘export’ as an act of implementation. Therefore, in the definition of ‘R&D outcomes’, the terms ‘intellectual property right’ and ‘patent’ need to be revised to ‘intellectual property’ and ‘patented invention’, respectively.
Third, it is problematic to establish the principle of ownership without distinguishing whether the R&D outcomes are tangible or intangible. It is not appropriate to apply the principle of institutional ownership after succession from researchers or the principle of joint ownership of joint research outcomes to tangible R&D outcomes. In addition, the meaning of contribution, which is the standard for determining the ownership ratio in the case of joint ownership, is unclear. It is also unclear in which cases researchers own the R&D outcomes. Therefore, when defining the ownership principle, it is necessary to distinguish between tangible and intangible outcomes. In addition, in the case of joint ownership, the meaning of contribution, which is the basis for calculating the ownership ratio, must be clarified. Furthermore, it is necessary to clarify in what cases the R&D outcomes can be “owned by researchers.”
Fourth, the Act only stipulates the principle of giving priority to R&D institutions in utilizing R&D outcomes, and does not adopt the principle of giving priority to participating companies or to domestic small and medium-sized enterprises. It is desirable to continuously review the impact of these changes on companies' participation in national R&D projects and domestic industries to determine whether revision of the Act is necessary.