Horizon Europe Exploitation & Intellectual Property: The Complete Guide to Turning Research into Impact

Introduction — Why Exploitation and IP Are the Missing Link Between Research and Real-World Change

In Horizon Europe, funding is not granted simply to produce knowledge. It is granted to generate visible, usable, and lasting value for society, the economy, and policy. Exploitation and intellectual property (IP) management are the mechanisms that transform research results into such value.

Yet for many consortia, exploitation remains the vaguest part of the proposal and the least structured part of project implementation. Partners confuse it with dissemination or communication, draft generic exploitation plans, and postpone concrete decisions until the end of the project. The result is predictable: diluted impact, weak narratives during reviews, and missed opportunities for innovation.

Horizon Europe has raised the bar. The programme expects credible pathways to impact, supported by clear ownership of results, realistic exploitation routes, and robust IP frameworks. Exploitation is no longer a secondary annex; it is a core dimension of excellence and impact.

This guide consolidates the logic behind exploitation and IP in Horizon Europe. It explains how to identify results, structure ownership, design exploitation strategies for different types of stakeholders, manage IP across borders and institutions, use tools such as the Horizon Results Platform, and sustain exploitation long after the project ends. Its objective is simple: help you move from generic statements to operational exploitation strategies that convince evaluators and work in practice.

1. Exploitation in Horizon Europe: What It Really Means (and What It Does Not)

In Horizon Europe terminology, exploitation means the use of project results in practice — by partners or by third parties — for commercial, societal, policy, or further research purposes. It is not a synonym of communication, nor of dissemination.

• Communication makes the project known to society at large.
• Dissemination shares results with communities that may use them (scientific, industrial, policy…).
• Exploitation ensures that those results are actually used in ways that create value.

A software library integrated into an SME’s product, a policy brief used by a ministry to adjust regulation, a clinical protocol adopted by hospitals, a dataset serving as a foundation for new research projects, a standardisation input taken up by CEN/CENELEC — all of these are exploitation outcomes.

Horizon Europe expects each project to identify:

1. Key exploitable results (KERs)
2. Who will use each result (beneficiaries or third parties)
3. How they will use it (business model, policy uptake, integration into practice, etc.)
4. What conditions are needed (IP, licensing, further investment, regulatory steps)

A project that only publishes papers and hosts final events with no structured exploitation pathway is no longer considered fully successful.

2. From Results to Key Exploitable Results: Structuring the Portfolio

Not all project outputs qualify as KERs. A KER is a result that meets three conditions:

• It is concrete: a tool, method, dataset, prototype, guideline, standardisation proposal, software, training programme, etc.
• It is distinct: it can be described, owned, and used independently.
• It has clear potential value: scientific, commercial, societal, environmental, or regulatory.

The first task of exploitation management is to build a results portfolio. This is not a one-time exercise; it is a continuous process.

Typical steps:

1. Early mapping (Month 6–12):

   • Review the Description of Action and identify expected results per Work Package.
   • List potential KERs even if they are not fully mature.

2. Periodic updates (each reporting period):

   • Confirm which results actually materialised.
   • Merge or split results if necessary.
   • Assess maturity (e.g. TRL, SRL, policy readiness, market readiness).

3. Pre-final consolidation:

   • Select a manageable number of flagship KERs.
   • For each: define ownership, exploitation route, and next steps after the project.

This portfolio becomes the backbone of the Impact narrative during reviews and in the final report.

3. IP and Ownership: Who Owns What, and How Do We Decide?

IP in Horizon Europe revolves around a few core concepts:

• Background: pre-existing knowledge and IP that partners bring to the project.
• Results (foreground): new knowledge, tools, or assets generated by the project.
• Access rights: rights that partners grant each other to use background and results for implementation and exploitation.

Background

Each partner retains full ownership of its background. However, to avoid disputes, background that is needed to implement the project or exploit results should be identified in the Consortium Agreement (CA), together with any limitations.

Results (foreground)

As a principle, results are owned by the beneficiary that generates them. When multiple partners contribute and their respective parts cannot be distinguished, the result is jointly owned, unless the CA defines another rule.

Joint ownership without a plan is a risk. A good CA includes mechanisms such as:

• One partner acting as exploitation lead with a licence from co-owners.
• Default shares (e.g. proportional to effort) and revenue-sharing rules.
• Procedures for opting out if a partner is not interested in exploitation.

Access rights

Access rights must be timely, fair, and limited to what is needed:

• For implementation: royalty-free access to necessary background and results.
• For exploitation: access under fair and reasonable conditions.

A clear IP framework does not suffocate innovation; it enables it by clarifying who can do what, under which conditions.

4. Exploitation Routes: From Commercial Products to Policy Uptake and Open Science

Not all results are destined to become commercial products. Horizon Europe recognises multiple exploitation routes:

1. Commercial exploitation

   • New or improved products and services
   • Licensing to third parties
   • Creation of spin-offs or start-ups
   • Technology transfer deals

2. Policy exploitation

   • Use of results in EU, national, or local policies
   • Integration into guidelines, regulations, or strategic plans

3. Societal exploitation

   • Adoption of practices by NGOs, communities, patient groups, schools, etc.

4. Research exploitation

   • Use of results as a basis for follow-up projects
   • Integration into research infrastructures or large collaborations

5. Standardisation and certification

   • Contributions to technical standards
   • Development of testing protocols and labels

Each route has its own timeline, stakeholders, and evidence requirements. A credible exploitation plan chooses realistic routes for each KER, instead of pretending that every result will simultaneously change policy, industry, and society.

5. Designing an Exploitation Strategy That Evaluators Trust

Evaluators want to see that exploitation is thought through, not improvised. A convincing exploitation strategy includes:

• A clear description of each KER: what it is, who owns it, and why it matters.
• A target user group for each KER: industry segments, policy levels, professional communities, or social groups.
• A route to uptake: pilots, demonstrators, living labs, regulatory dialogues, business models, or training programmes.
• A timeline beyond the project: what happens in the 1–4 years after the end.
• The role of each partner in exploitation: who leads, who supports, who benefits.

The strategy must also be internally consistent with:

• The Work Package structure (especially WPs on exploitation and innovation).
• The budget (resources for exploitation activities, business modelling, IP protection).
• The consortium composition (presence of industrial partners, cities, NGOs, etc.).

Generic statements like “results will be exploited by partners and made available on the market” no longer pass.

6. Open Science, Publications, and IP: Finding the Right Balance

Open science is a central principle in Horizon Europe, but it does not require beneficiaries to give up IP indiscriminately.

Key points:

• Publications: peer-reviewed articles must be open access under specific conditions, but this does not imply that all data or code must be immediately public.
• Embargo periods and routes (gold/green open access) can be chosen to align with exploitation plans.
• Research data: must follow the principle “as open as possible, as closed as necessary”. Sensitive, personal, or commercially valuable data can be protected.
• Pre-prints and conferences: must be coordinated with IP strategies to avoid destroying novelty before patent applications.

The exploitation team should work hand in hand with scientific leaders to ensure that open science practices support impact instead of undermining it.

7. Protection Tools: Patents, Copyright, Trade Secrets, and More

Protecting a result does not always mean filing a patent. The right protection tool depends on the nature of the result:

• Patents: for technical inventions that meet novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability criteria.
• Utility models (in some countries): for technical improvements with lighter requirements.
• Copyright: for software, text, images, training materials, and documentation.
• Database rights: for structured datasets.
• Trademarks: for names, logos, and brands that may survive beyond the project.
• Design rights: for the appearance of products.
• Trade secrets: for know-how that is kept confidential by internal measures.

Protection must be selective and proportional. Over-patenting drains resources; under-protecting weakens negotiation power. A practical approach is to:

1. Screen potential KERs with an IP expert.
2. Decide which results justify formal protection.
3. Budget protection costs (filing, maintenance, freedom-to-operate analysis).

8. Managing Exploitation During the Project: Processes and Governance

Exploitation cannot be compressed into the final six months. It requires continuous management.

Good practice includes:

• An Exploitation and IP Committee with representatives of key partners.
• Regular result collection rounds (e.g. every 6 or 12 months).
• A shared results and IP register documenting contributions, ownership, and status.
• Early freedom-to-operate checks for results with high commercial potential.
• Integration of exploitation into review preparation: being ready to explain how early results already create value.

This governance does not need to be heavy, but it must be clear. When exploitation is everyone’s job, it quickly becomes no one’s responsibility.

9. The Horizon Results Platform and EU-Level Support Tools

The European Commission has developed a set of tools to support exploitation:

• The Horizon Results Platform, where projects can showcase KERs to potential users, investors, and policymakers.
• The Horizon Results Booster, providing coaching for exploitation strategy, business modelling, and dissemination.
• Investor and industry matchmaking events, often linked to specific themes or missions.

Using these tools demonstrates proactivity and increases the chances of post-project uptake. Uploading well-described KERs with clear value propositions is particularly appreciated by the Commission.

10. Post-Project Exploitation: The Four-Year Obligation and Beyond

Horizon Europe requires beneficiaries to take up measures to exploit results for at least four years after the project end (unless otherwise agreed or impossible). This is more than a clause; it reflects the expectation that impact continues beyond funding.

Concretely, this means:

• Maintaining internal ownership and contact points for each KER.
• Pursuing follow-up projects, investments, or commercial deals.
• Continuing policy and stakeholder dialogues.
• Keeping results visible (websites, Horizon Results Platform, institutional channels).

For many organisations, post-project exploitation becomes a strategic asset: a foundation for new collaborations, products, and positioning in European ecosystems.

Conclusion — Exploitation and IP as the Real Legacy of Horizon Europe Projects

Exploitation and IP management are not legal burdens or annexes to be drafted reluctantly. They are the mechanisms that turn public investment into tangible change. When exploitation is treated seriously from the start, projects:

• Gain credibility with evaluators and Project Officers.
• Protect their freedom to operate and negotiate.
• Increase their chances of long-term impact.
• Strengthen their institutional position in European research and innovation.

The most successful Horizon Europe beneficiaries are not only excellent in science and project management. They also master the art of translating results into value — with clear IP frameworks, selective protection, realistic exploitation routes, and a long-term vision.

In this sense, exploitation is not the final step of the project. It is the thread that connects the first idea in the proposal to the long-term transformation that Europe expects from its investment.