How Mid-Market Businesses Can Safeguard IP in Distributed Tech Teams

Your Polish developer just committed code that could be worth millions. But here's the problem: if your EOR contract relies on a generic template, there’s a real risk you may not have clear ownership.

Mid-market tech companies hiring across Europe face a minefield of IP ownership rules that change dramatically between countries, and most EOR agreements aren't built to handle them. This article walks through the specific risks that emerge when your team operates in five or more countries, why boilerplate contracts fail during disputes, and the operational controls that protect your IP beyond what any contract can do alone.

Key Takeaways

• Standard EOR contracts often rely on local IP laws that change dramatically between countries, leaving ownership unclear when your tech team works across borders
• European markets present specific IP challenges, moral rights in Germany and France, collective agreements in Spain, that generic templates don't address
• Protecting IP properly means combining strong contract language with practical controls like access management and proper offboarding
• Companies scaling from contractors to employees to owned entities face IP ownership gaps unless they use a single platform that maintains documentation throughout each transition
• This article provides general information about IP protection. See our full disclaimer

Intellectual property risks when teams operate in 5 or more countries

Standard EOR contracts frequently fall short because they defer to whatever the local law says about IP ownership. When your engineering team spans Germany, Poland, France, and the UK, you're operating under four different legal systems, and each one treats code ownership differently.

In the US, "work-for-hire" typically means the company owns what employees create. Most European countries require you to spell this out explicitly in writing. Some grant developers "moral rights" that stick around even after you've secured ownership on paper.

For mid-market companies this isn't theoretical. A single unassigned patent from a departing French developer can stall a funding round. A moral rights claim from a German contractor can block a product launch. The complexity grows as you scale from 200 to 2,000 employees because you're no longer managing a handful of contractors, you're coordinating entire product teams across borders, each creating IP every single day.

1. Unassigned moral rights claims

European developers often retain certain rights even after signing over ownership. In Germany, developers keep the right to be credited as authors of their code. In France, they can object if you modify their work in ways that harm their professional reputation. These rights can't always be waived, even with strong contracts.

What this creates for scaling tech companies:

• Due diligence delays: Investors pause when moral rights haven't been documented or waived where legally possible
• Product pivot friction: Original developers can challenge how their code gets modified or commercialised

Your EOR contract might include a generic IP assignment clause. Unless it explicitly addresses moral rights jurisdiction by jurisdiction, you're exposed.

2. Subcontractor chain gaps

Remote developers often use third-party tools, open-source libraries, or freelance help without formal approval. If your contracts don't include "flow-down" clauses requiring developers to secure IP assignment from anyone they work with, you don't fully own what you're paying for.

Here's how this typically unfolds: Your Polish contractor hires a freelance designer in Ukraine to create UI mockups. The designer retains copyright because there's no contract between your company and them. When you try to commercialise the product, you discover you don't have clear ownership of a core visual element.

‍

Mid-market companies in professional services often discover gaps like this during M&A due diligence, when acquirers demand proof of clean IP ownership across every jurisdiction.

3. Export-controlled source code

If you're building software for defence or financial services, your source code may be subject to export controls. When a developer in Poland commits code to a repository accessible by a teammate in Serbia, you've potentially triggered an export that requires a licence.

Many standard EOR contracts focus on employment law and may not address export compliance, which falls under international trade regulations. It’s important to review your agreements and seek legal advice to ensure all regulatory bases are covered. Yet the penalties for violations can include criminal charges and loss of government contracts.

The operational challenge for HR leaders: You're managing payroll and compliance in 8+ countries, but you also need to know where your code gets accessed, who can see it, and whether cross-border collaboration triggers regulatory requirements. This is where specialist legal review becomes essential, template contracts can't anticipate the intersection of employment law, IP law, and export control regulations.

4. Shadow IT and access sprawl

Distributed teams typically use 40 to 60 software tools. When developers retain access to repositories, cloud environments, or internal systems after changing roles or leaving the company, your IP sits at risk.

The problem compounds when you're using multiple employment platforms. One vendor manages your contractors in Germany, another handles EOR employees in France, and a third runs payroll for your UK entity. No single system tracks who has access to what.

For HR leaders, this creates an impossible administrative burden. You're manually coordinating offboarding across three platforms, hoping nothing falls through the cracks, a challenge compounded when 30% of IT leaders report using between 51 and 100 SaaS tools. Meanwhile, a former contractor still has admin access to your AWS environment because no one remembered to revoke it. Consolidated platforms significantly reduce this risk by centralising access management and automating offboarding workflows across all employment types.

Why standard EOR templates leave mid-market companies exposed

Most EOR contracts get built for speed and scale, not for the IP complexity that mid-market tech companies face. The result is boilerplate language that looks comprehensive but crumbles under scrutiny during audits or disputes.

Companies scaling from 200 to 500 employees often discover gaps when they're least prepared to address them, during a funding round, an acquisition, or a regulatory investigation.

1. Generic governing-law clauses

Many EOR contracts include a single governing-law clause that applies to all employees, regardless of where they work. This creates jurisdiction shopping risks when disputes arise.

Here's the scenario: Your EOR contract gets governed by UK law, but your French developer files a claim in French court. French courts often apply local law to employment disputes involving French residents, even if your contract specifies a different jurisdiction. If your IP assignment clause doesn’t meet French legal requirements, it may be at risk of being unenforceable, outcomes depend on the specific circumstances.

For professional services companies operating across European markets, this isn't hypothetical. A poorly drafted governing-law clause can mean your IP protections evaporate the moment a dispute crosses borders.

2. Weak invention assignment language

Template contracts often include vague language like "all work product created during employment belongs to the company." This might work in jurisdictions with strong work-for-hire doctrines, but it fails in countries that require explicit, prospective assignment of future inventions.

Strong assignment language specifies:

• Scope: Exactly what types of IP get assigned (patents, copyrights, trade secrets)
• Timing: Assignment occurs automatically at the moment of creation, not upon request
• Waiver: Where legally possible, the employee waives moral rights and agrees not to challenge ownership

Weak assignment language leaves gaps:

• Unclear whether pre-existing IP gets excluded
• No explicit assignment of future inventions
• Silent on moral rights and attribution
• No flow-down requirements for subcontractors

‍

The difference between approaches becomes painfully clear when investors ask to see your IP assignment documentation.

3. No flow-down to third-party tools

EOR contracts focus on the employment relationship between your company and the individual employee. They don't typically address the developer tools, cloud services, or open-source libraries your team uses daily.

The gap: When a developer contributes code to an open-source project or uses a third-party API, they may be granting licences or creating derivative works that affect your IP ownership. If your contract doesn't require developers to secure your company's rights in scenarios like this, you're building on a shaky foundation.

This is particularly acute in financial services, where regulators scrutinise software supply chains and third-party dependencies. A single open-source component with an incompatible licence can force you to rewrite core functionality.

EU IP pitfalls tech leaders face when scaling distributed teams

European IP law is a patchwork of national regimes, each with distinct requirements that catch mid-market companies off-guard. What works in the UK often fails in Germany, and what's enforceable in Poland may be void in France.

For tech leaders building distributed teams beyond the UK, understanding jurisdictional nuances isn't optional, it's the difference between owning your IP and discovering you don't during due diligence.

Germany Urheberrecht challenges

German copyright law (Urheberrecht) treats authorship as a personal right that can never be fully transferred. Developers retain certain moral rights even when they've assigned economic rights to your company.

What this means operationally: You can own the right to commercialise the software, but the original author retains the right to be identified and to object to derogatory treatment. German law generally treats moral rights as inalienable, so the effectiveness of standard waivers depends on the specific context and contractual language.

For defence sector companies, this creates a specific problem. When you're building classified systems, you can't always credit individual developers. Yet German law gives them the right to attribution. The workaround involves explicit contractual language that addresses German moral rights, combined with company policies that manage attribution in ways that satisfy both legal requirements and operational security. This requires specialist legal review, not template contracts.

France droit moral waivers

French law goes further than Germany, granting four distinct moral rights that persist even after assignment: the right of disclosure, the right of attribution, the right of respect (preventing modifications that harm reputation), and the right of withdrawal.

The right of withdrawal is particularly problematic. A developer can theoretically reclaim their work if they believe it's being used in ways that harm their reputation, even if they've been paid and signed an assignment agreement. In practice, French courts rarely allow withdrawal for commercial software developed during employment. But "rarely" isn't "never," and the uncertainty creates risk during investor due diligence.

For financial services companies, the solution involves:

• Explicit acknowledgment of moral rights in employment contracts
• Clear scope of permitted modifications and uses
• Documentation showing developers understood and accepted the commercial nature of the work
• Fair compensation that courts will view as reasonable consideration for broad usage rights

You won't find elements like this in standard EOR templates.

Spain collective agreement constraints

Spanish employment law gives industry-wide collective agreements (convenios colectivos) precedence over individual employment contracts in many cases. For tech workers, this can affect IP assignment.

The challenge: Some collective agreements include provisions about intellectual property ownership that your individual employment contract can't override. If you're hiring developers in Spain without understanding which collective agreement applies, you may not own what you think you own.

For companies with 200 or more employees, this becomes acute when you're managing multiple collective agreements across different Spanish regions and industries. HR teams often lack visibility into which agreements apply and how they affect IP ownership. Platforms with local legal teams in each market can identify applicable collective agreements, flag IP provisions, and draft employment contracts that work within constraints like this. You can't automate this with template contracts.

Contract clauses that secure worldwide ownership

Comprehensive IP protection starts with contract language that addresses multi-jurisdictional challenges explicitly. The clauses provide the legal foundation that prevents disputes and satisfies investor due diligence.

For HR and legal teams, the goal is audit-ready documentation that works across 180+ countries without requiring separate contracts for each jurisdiction.

1. Work-made-for-hire and invention assignment

Effective IP protection uses both work-made-for-hire language (where applicable) and explicit invention assignment clauses. This dual approach provides redundancy across jurisdictions.

Work-made-for-hire is a US legal concept that doesn't translate directly to most other countries. In the UK, the equivalent is "work created in the course of employment," which gives employers automatic ownership. But even in the UK, explicit assignment is recommended to eliminate ambiguity.

Invention assignment goes further by covering:

• Pre-invention assignment (ownership transfers at the moment of creation)
• Future inventions (anything created during employment, even outside working hours if related to company business)
• Improvements and derivatives (modifications to existing IP)
• Documentation obligations (employees agree to execute additional documents if needed to perfect ownership)

Jurisdiction-specific variations across 180+ countries include Germany's Employee Inventions Act requiring compensation for service inventions, France's persistent moral rights despite assignment, the Netherlands' automatic assignment with explicit language being clearer, and Poland's requirement for specific identification making prospective assignment more complex. Platforms with local legal expertise draft contracts that navigate variations like this without requiring HR teams to become IP law experts.

2. Perpetual moral rights waiver

Where legally possible, comprehensive IP contracts include explicit moral rights waivers. Where waivers aren't enforceable, contracts acknowledge moral rights and define how they'll be managed.

Effective waiver language for European jurisdictions acknowledges the existence of moral rights under local law, waives rights to the maximum extent permitted by law, specifies how attribution will be handled, addresses modifications and derivative works explicitly, and includes consideration (compensation) that courts will view as reasonable.

For professional services companies, this might look like: "Employee acknowledges that the Work may be modified, adapted, or incorporated into derivative works without attribution. To the extent permitted by applicable law, Employee irrevocably waives all moral rights, including rights of attribution and integrity. Where waiver is not permitted, Employee consents to all modifications and agrees not to assert moral rights against the Company or its licensees."

This language won't work everywhere, but it provides maximum protection where it's enforceable and demonstrates good faith where it's not.

3. Automatic assignment of future inventions

Prospective assignment clauses transfer ownership at the moment of creation, eliminating the need for separate assignment documents every time an employee creates something new.

Key elements of effective prospective assignment include automatic transfer where ownership vests in the company immediately upon creation, no further action required where the employee agrees that no additional documentation is needed for assignment to be effective, cooperation obligation where the employee agrees to execute confirmatory documents if requested, and survival where assignment obligations survive termination of employment.

For audit-ready processes, this means IP ownership is clear from day one with no gaps during employment, documentation exists showing employees understood and agreed to prospective assignment, records prove assignment occurred under valid contracts in each jurisdiction, and confirmatory assignments are available if needed for patent filings or litigation. Mid-market companies that get this right can answer investor IP questions in hours, not weeks.

Operational controls beyond the contract

Legal protections only work if you have operational systems that enforce them. For distributed tech teams, this means access controls, documentation workflows, and offboarding procedures that prevent IP leakage.

HR leaders face a practical challenge: You're managing employment compliance across multiple countries, but you also safeguard the company's most valuable assets. The right platform makes this seamless rather than adding to your administrative burden.

1. Role-based repository access

The principle of least privilege means developers only access the code and systems they need for their current role. When someone changes teams or leaves the company, access gets revoked immediately.

Best practices for distributed development teams include granular permissions where access ties to specific repositories (not blanket admin rights), automated provisioning where new hires get appropriate access on day one based on their role, regular audits where quarterly reviews identify and revoke unnecessary access, and integration with HR systems where access management ties to employment status so offboarding triggers automatic revocation.

For companies using multiple employment platforms, this becomes nearly impossible to manage manually. A contractor managed by one vendor, an EOR employee managed by another, and a direct employee in your owned entity, each requires separate offboarding procedures. Consolidated platforms eliminate this fragmentation by centralising access management across all employment types.

2. Source code escrow and audit trails

Documentation and backup procedures protect IP during team transitions and provide evidence of ownership if disputes arise.

Source code escrow means depositing code with a neutral third party who releases it to your company (or investors, or acquirers) under specified conditions. This is particularly important when using contractors or offshore teams.

Audit trails demonstrate:

• Who created which code and when
• What changes were made and by whom
• When code was committed to company repositories
• Whether proper assignment agreements were in place at the time of creation

For mid-market companies in financial services, regulators increasingly expect this level of documentation. It's not enough to own the IP, you need to prove you own it. The operational benefit: When an investor asks for IP documentation during due diligence, you can produce comprehensive records in hours. This speeds up funding rounds and increases valuation by reducing risk.

3.  Offboarding playbook

Secure team member transitions protect IP while reducing HR administrative burden. The goal is a systematic process that works the same way whether you're offboarding a contractor in Germany or an employee in France.

Step-by-step process for distributed teams: immediate access revocation where all system access gets disabled within hours of termination notification, device recovery where company equipment gets returned or remotely wiped according to local data protection laws, knowledge transfer where departing team members document their work and transfer institutional knowledge, exit interview where HR confirms IP assignment obligations and collects any outstanding work product, and confirmatory documentation where departing team members sign confirmatory IP assignment if needed.

The challenge for HR leaders: coordinating this across multiple countries, employment types, and vendor platforms while ensuring nothing falls through the cracks.  This isn't just about security, it's about giving HR teams confidence that the process is complete.

Checklist for choosing an EOR versus setting up a local entity

Mid-market companies weighing EOR services against entity establishment face a strategic decision that affects IP protection, operational flexibility, and long-term costs.

The right choice depends on your growth trajectory, the countries where you're hiring, and how much control you need over employment terms and IP assignment.

1. Depth of in-country legal teams

Generic contract templates may not always account for local legal nuances, which can present challenges if disputes arise. It is often advisable to seek access to local legal insight for drafting contracts, prioritizing jurisdictional expertise in the countries where you are hiring. Experience with IP matters and regulatory inquiries, along with responsiveness during complex issues, can be significant assets.

For companies hiring across European markets, the value of specialist legal review often becomes clearer in the event of a dispute. For instance, local authorities may hesitate to enforce foreign-law contracts, and specific termination terms might be required by local councils. Teamed works to leverage local legal insight across European markets to help support companies in highly regulated sectors, aiming to assist in mitigating potential compliance risks.

2. ISO 27001 and security credentials

IP protection isn't just about contracts—it's about operational security. When you're entrusting an EOR with access to employee data, payroll systems, and potentially sensitive business information, their security posture matters.

‍

‍

3. IP indemnity caps and service levels

Financial protection and response times for IP disputes reveal how seriously an EOR takes IP risk. Many providers cap indemnity at a fraction of the actual damages a mid-market company would face if IP ownership gets successfully challenged.

Fair and transparent pricing includes indemnity caps that reflect actual risk (not arbitrary limits), service level agreements that specify response times for IP disputes, escalation procedures that connect you with senior legal counsel (not tier-one support), and proactive monitoring of regulatory changes that affect IP ownership.

When you're comparing EOR providers, ask specifically about IP indemnity. If the cap is £10,000 but your company's valuation depends on owning IP worth millions, you're not actually protected.

Graduation path from contractor to entity

Transition processes need expert management to prevent IP gaps during company growth phases. When you convert a contractor to an employee, or graduate from EOR to an owned entity, the IP chain of title can break if specialists aren't handling the details.

For mid-market companies, vendor consolidation isn't just about administrative convenience, it's about maintaining clean IP ownership as your employment models evolve.

1. Mapping IP during contractor conversion

Maintaining IP chain of title when converting contractors to employees requires systematic documentation that proves continuous ownership.

The risk: A contractor creates valuable IP under one contract. When they convert to employee status, they sign a new employment agreement. If the new agreement doesn't explicitly reference and incorporate the prior IP assignment, you've created ambiguity about whether the contractor-created IP actually gets owned by the company.

Audit-ready documentation includes the original contractor agreement with IP assignment, conversion documentation that explicitly references prior work, confirmatory assignment that covers all work created during the contractor period, and records showing no gap in employment relationship.

For HR leaders, the operational challenge is coordinating this across multiple platforms. If your contractors get managed by one vendor and your employees by another, you're manually creating confirmatory documents and hoping you haven't missed anything. Single-platform solutions reduces the friction by maintaining consistent documentation across all employment types.

2. Easy transistion from EOR to entity

When you establish a local entity and transition employees from EOR to direct employment, IP ownership can become murky if the transition isn't handled correctly.

The mechanics: Under EOR, the EOR provider is the legal employer. When you establish your own entity, you become the legal employer. This is technically a change of employer, which in some jurisdictions requires new contracts and can affect IP assignment.

How sophisticated platforms enable smooth transitions: transfer agreements that explicitly assign all IP from the EOR period to your company, continuous employment recognition that treats the transition as a change in administrative arrangement (not a new employment relationship), coordinated documentation that maintains the IP chain of title without re-onboarding friction, and local law compliance that satisfies jurisdictional requirements for employer changes.

For companies scaling from 200+ employees, this transition often happens gradually, a few employees at a time as you establish entities in key markets. Managing it across multiple vendors creates enormous administrative burden and IP risk. The single-platform benefit: Employees stay in the same system with the same login, same benefits portal, same everything, while the legal employer changes in the background. However, maintaining IP protection through these transitions requires careful legal review to ensure there are no gaps.

3. Audit-ready documentation workflow

Systematic approaches to IP documentation satisfy investors and auditors without creating extra work for HR teams.

What investors look for during due diligence: proof that IP assignment agreements were in place when IP was created, evidence that assignments comply with local law in each jurisdiction, documentation showing employees understood what they were assigning, confirmatory assignments for key IP if original documentation has any ambiguity, and clear chain of title for IP created by contractors, employees, and consultants.

Effective compliance processes include automated contract generation with jurisdiction-specific IP clauses, digital signature workflows that create timestamped records of agreement, centralised document storage that makes IP documentation instantly accessible, and regular audits that identify and remediate any documentation gaps. For mid-market companies preparing for Series B or C funding, having this documentation organised and accessible can accelerate funding timelines by weeks. The key is choosing systems and processes that maintain this documentation automatically as part of normal employment workflows, rather than requiring separate IP tracking efforts.

Put IP anxiety to bed and keep building with Teamed

Proper IP protection enables confident scaling without the constant worry that you don't actually own what your team is building. For mid-market companies in financial services, defence, and professional services, this isn't theoretical, it's the foundation of your valuation.

The difference between template EOR contracts and comprehensive IP protection becomes clear during your first dispute, your first audit, or your first due diligence process. By then, it's often too late to fix documentation gaps.

Teamed can support with complex European employment and IP challenges that mid-market companies face when building distributed tech teams. Our local legal teams can draft jurisdiction-specific contracts, and our specialists handle the edge cases that template contracts can't address. Whether you're hiring your first developer in Germany or graduating from EOR to owned entities across five European markets, everything stays on one platform with continuous IP protection.

Talk to the experts about how Teamed can support in safeguarding your IP while you focus on building your product.

Frequently asked questions about IP protection in distributed teams

Does open-source contribution by remote developers affect company IP ownership?

Yes, potentially. When developers contribute to open-source projects using company time or resources, they may be creating derivative works or granting licences that affect your IP. Your employment contracts can address open-source contributions explicitly, requiring approval for contributions and clarifying that company-developed IP doesn't get donated to open-source projects without authorisation. Many companies allow contributions but require review to ensure core IP isn't being inadvertently released.

How does UK IP law differ from EU moral rights rules post-Brexit?

UK law has always been more employer-friendly than most EU jurisdictions regarding IP. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 gives employers automatic ownership of works created by employees in the course of employment, and UK courts rarely recognise moral rights claims in commercial contexts. Post-Brexit, this divergence is likely to continue, with the UK maintaining its pragmatic approach while EU countries preserve stronger moral rights protections. Companies with teams in both UK and EU markets need contracts that work under both regimes.

Can we retroactively fix past EOR agreements that lack proper IP clauses?

Yes, through confirmatory assignment agreements. Have affected employees sign new documents that explicitly assign all prior work product to your company, with appropriate consideration (even nominal payment demonstrates valid contract formation). This won't be as clean as having proper assignments from the start, but it significantly reduces risk. The key is acting before disputes arise, courts are more sceptical of assignments signed after termination or during litigation.

What IP documentation do investors request during due diligence processes?

Investors typically request employment agreements showing IP assignment clauses, contractor agreements with assignment provisions, invention assignment agreements for key technical staff, documentation of any IP created before proper assignments were in place, and evidence that assignments comply with local law in each jurisdiction. They'll also want proof that former employees and contractors have signed confirmatory assignments if original documentation is weak. Companies that can produce this documentation within 48 hours demonstrate operational maturity that positively affects valuation.

Is establishing a local entity always safer than using an EOR for IP protection?

Not necessarily. What matters is the quality of the IP assignment clauses and the expertise of the legal team drafting them, not whether you're using EOR or owned entity. A well-drafted EOR contract with jurisdiction-specific IP provisions provides better protection than a poorly drafted direct employment contract. The advantage of owned entities is control—you draft the contracts and manage the employment relationship directly. But for mid-market companies without in-house legal expertise in every market, specialist EOR providers often deliver better IP protection than DIY entity establishment.