Co-Owned Patents in Turkey: Use, Licensing, Infringement Actions and Share Sales

A co-owner of a Turkish patent can use the invention after notifying the other owners and can bring an infringement action independently, but licensing the invention to a third party requires unanimity or a court-authorised solution under Article 112. Selling a share introduces a separate statutory pre-emption mechanism under Article 148. These rules make joint patent ownership very different from simply dividing royalties between business partners.

Have a general question about this article? Ask anonymously

This guide is for foreign investors, research partners and technology companies entering a Turkish joint venture or inheriting an existing co-owned patent position. It explains the distinction between using the invention, licensing it, selling a share, maintaining the right and litigating against outsiders. It also identifies the records and contract provisions needed to prevent an ownership arrangement from becoming an operational deadlock.

Identify who owns the patent, not just who owns the business

Begin with the patent register and the chain of entitlement. The shareholders of a company do not become individual co-owners of every patent held by that company simply because they own shares in it. Article 112 concerns co-ownership of the patent application or patent itself. The person named in a joint venture agreement, the inventor and the registered proprietor can occupy different legal positions.

Article 109 of Industrial Property Code No. 6769 addresses the right to apply for a patent, including joint inventions and succession. Funding a project, purchasing an interest and contributing to the invention are different events. Record the legal basis on which each proposed owner acquired its share rather than treating a financial contribution as conclusive proof of inventorship or ownership.

For an international patent family, prepare an asset-by-asset ownership schedule. A share in a Turkish patent does not automatically establish the same share in every foreign family member. Identify the national right, application number, registered owners and relevant agreements. The schedule should distinguish an ownership interest from a licence, security interest or contractual promise to assign later.

Article 112 starts with the owners’ agreement

Article 112(1) states that the relationship between multiple owners is determined by their agreement and, without one, by the Civil Code provisions on co-ownership. The same article identifies actions each owner can perform independently. A written co-ownership agreement should therefore be treated as an operational document, not merely a statement of percentages.

Review the executed agreement and all amendments before deciding whether a proposed act is authorised. Important subjects include use of the invention, prosecution decisions, annual-fee administration, licensing, enforcement, information sharing and exit. A general clause requiring cooperation does not answer who can approve a settlement, instruct a technical representative or decide that a particular application should be abandoned.

Do not assume every decision follows a simple majority vote because one participant holds the largest economic interest. Article 112 contains specific rules for particular acts, including unanimity for third-party licensing and an independent right to sue. The legal classification of the decision must come before the calculation of voting power.

Independent use requires notice to the other owners

Article 112(1)(b) allows each right holder to use the invention after notifying the others. Notification and consent are not the same thing. The statutory wording should not be rewritten as a universal requirement that every co-owner first obtain unanimous permission for its own use. Equally, the notification requirement should not be omitted from an internal manufacturing decision.

The notice should make the intended use identifiable and preserve proof that the other owners were informed. Product, process, operating entity and location can be important factual details. Those are practical drafting considerations, not a mandatory form prescribed by Article 112. The owners’ agreement and any separate confidentiality or exploitation arrangements also need to be reviewed.

A co-owner’s own use must be distinguished from giving an independent third party a licence. Calling an arrangement outsourcing or group cooperation does not conclusively determine its legal nature. Identify who will use the invention, under what authority and for whose operation. A foreign parent and its Turkish subsidiary should not be treated as the same legal person merely for convenience.

Third-party licensing: unanimity and the court route

Article 112(2) requires unanimity of the right holders to grant a third party a licence to use the invention. A co-owner should therefore not promise an exclusive Turkish manufacturing licence on the assumption that its own share alone permits it to bind the whole patent. The licence grant must be assessed against the ownership structure and the statutory rule.

The same paragraph addresses deadlock. If unanimity cannot be achieved, the court can, considering the existing circumstances and equity, grant licensing authority to one or more owners. That is a judicial remedy, not automatic approval when an owner stays silent or refuses a proposal. The applicant must present the actual dispute and the circumstances supporting the requested authority.

A licensing proposal should identify the proposed licensee, territory, permitted acts, duration, exclusivity, sublicensing and financial structure. A court or the other owners cannot meaningfully evaluate a request described only as permission to commercialise. Preserve the proposal, negotiations and reasons given for rejection so that the disagreement is accurately documented.

The underlying patent-licence rules in Article 125 also matter. Exclusivity, the licensor’s retained use and sublicensing are separate issues from whether all co-owners approved the transaction. For the later question of who can enforce a licensed right, see our Article 158 licensee enforcement guide. A licence granted by co-owners and co-ownership itself create different procedural positions.

Preserving the patent does not require ignoring a deadlock

Article 112(1)(c) permits each owner independently to take measures necessary to preserve the patent application or patent. This matters where an approaching procedural step risks loss of the shared asset while the owners disagree commercially. The preservation power should be distinguished from a decision to grant a new licence or dispose of the entire right.

Maintain a shared docket showing the application or patent number, official notifications, relevant deadlines and the person responsible for each response. An investor should obtain evidence of actual filings and payments rather than rely on a statement that the other partner is handling everything. Copies of instructions, receipts and Office correspondence make responsibility traceable.

The owners’ agreement should address allocation and reimbursement of prosecution and maintenance costs. Article 112’s independent preservation power does not supply a complete commercial budget or resolve every reimbursement dispute. Specify how expenses are approved, documented and allocated, and what happens if an owner refuses to contribute.

One co-owner can sue an infringer, with a one-month notification duty

Under Article 112(1)(ç), each owner can independently bring a civil action against a third party for infringement of the jointly held application or patent rights. The owner who files must inform the other owners within one month from the filing date so they can participate. The filing date and the later notice must therefore be separately recorded.

This is not the three-month mechanism for a non-exclusive licensee under Article 158. Confusing those provisions can lead to an incorrect waiting period or a missed notification. Determine whether the claimant is an owner or a licensee before selecting the statutory route.

The ability to sue independently does not eliminate the need to prove infringement. A patent claim must be compared with the challenged product or process, and the requested remedies must fit the case. Our process-patent proof guide addresses the special evidence issues for manufacturing methods and the protection of business secrets.

Coordinate communications and settlement authority with the other owners. A unilateral litigation decision should not be assumed to authorise surrender of their interests or a new worldwide licence. Any settlement must specify the parties bound, the acts resolved and the permissions granted, with the co-ownership and licensing rules considered separately.

Selling a patent share triggers a different set of rules

Article 112(1)(a) recognises an owner’s ability to dispose of its share. Article 148(3) then provides pre-emption rights for the other co-owners where a share is sold wholly or partly to a third party. These provisions must be read together. Free disposal of a share does not mean the other owners’ statutory purchase rights can be ignored.

The buyer or seller must notify the other owners of the sale. The pre-emption right expires three months after notification to the right holder and, in every event, two years after the sale. These are separate outer limits, not a single period that always runs from the day a co-owner informally hears a rumour about the transaction.

If the parties cannot agree, the right is exercised through an action against the buyer. Before the court orders transfer of the share, the person exercising pre-emption must deposit the sale price in cash at the place and within the period determined by the court. Article 148(3) excludes pre-emption in sales by compulsory auction.

An acquisition file should therefore include the sale terms, the parties, payment evidence, notifications and delivery records. Do not treat a private acknowledgement from one owner as proof that every other owner received proper notification. The drafting should also distinguish a sale of a patent share from a transaction involving shares in a company that owns the patent.

Written form, notarised assignments and register effects

Article 148(4) subjects the relevant legal transactions to written form and requires notarised form for the validity of assignments. Identify whether the document assigns a patent share, grants a licence or merely promises a future transaction. A business term sheet should not be presented as a completed assignment without examining the applicable form requirements.

Article 148(5) governs recordal and publication of transactions. Subject to its Article 115 reservation, rights arising from transactions not recorded in the register cannot be asserted against good-faith third parties. Contract completion and register protection are therefore distinct steps in the transaction file.

Article 112(3) also states that an application or patent cannot be divided for transfer or the creation of rights even where there are several owners. Co-ownership shares are not the same as physically splitting one patent into separate independent patents by a private contract. An agreement allocating fields of exploitation requires its own analysis and should not misdescribe the registered asset.

Prepare an acquisition or joint-venture decision file

A useful file contains the patent register, the ownership chain, the co-ownership agreement, licences, security records and the prosecution docket. Add a schedule of who uses the invention and which third parties have been authorised. This reveals the difference between a clean shared asset and a patent burdened by commitments that the proposed investor has not yet seen.

Review technical validity and enforceability separately from ownership. A properly assigned share does not guarantee that the patent is valid or that every competitor infringes it. The Article 138 invalidity guide explains that separate assessment. Similarly, owning a patent does not automatically provide freedom to operate against earlier third-party rights.

For cross-border agreements, distinguish the contractual governing-law question from the Turkish right and its enforcement. The international IP licence guide addresses one part of that analysis. The final transaction plan should identify which documents need execution, which notices must be delivered and which register actions remain outstanding, without treating a signed commercial summary as completion of every legal step.

Official sources

Primary provisions: Industrial Property Code No. 6769, Articles 109, 112, 125, 148 and 158. Official legislation links are available in the TÜRKPATENT legislation directory. This English explanation is not an official translation or a completed due-diligence opinion on an identified patent.

Istanbul and Mersin offices

Bakırcı & Keskin Law Office is Mersin-based and works throughout Türkiye with an Istanbul and Mersin focus.

Istanbul — Polaris Plaza

Maslak Ahi Evran Caddesi, Polaris Plaza No:21, Floor 9, 34475 Sarıyer/İstanbul. Istanbul office directions.

Mersin — Profit İş Merkezi

İhsaniye Mahallesi, 4903. Sokak, Profit İş Merkezi No:23, Floor 3, Office 14, 33070 Akdeniz/Mersin. Mersin office directions.

Call +90 552 224 43 66. An enquiry does not establish representation or suspend a legal deadline.