Put evidence behind the ownership assumption
A business may use a logo, software platform or set of photographs for years without a clear file explaining its rights. Yudey's IP ownership review helps organise the selected assets and the evidence supporting their use. It is useful before an investor asks questions, a licence is negotiated or the business relies on those assets in a sale.
We start by defining the assets and the purpose of the review. A focused examination of commissioned website content is different from a broad review of a product company's technology. The proposal identifies the categories, document set and professional input included. It does not describe a selected-document review as proof that every intellectual property right used by the business has been cleared.
Map the asset, creator and business use
The agreed work can build a practical record of what the asset is, who created it, when it was developed and how the business uses it. We distinguish registered rights from other forms of intellectual property and identify the records relevant to each. The official overview explains that different types of work can involve different kinds of protection. [1]
Creation may involve employees, founders, agencies, freelancers or several contributors over time. We ask which contracts and instructions applied at each stage. A payment record or invoice can be useful evidence, but should not be treated as an automatic answer to every ownership question. The review records the documentary basis and highlights where a conclusion depends on missing information or further analysis.
Review contracts and assignments
The selected review can examine employment, consultancy and commissioning documents, along with any assignment or licence provisions. We identify how the documents describe the work and whether the relevant parties and assets are clear. If an agreement was signed after development began, the timing and scope may need attention. We do not assume a later template resolves every earlier contribution.
Founders sometimes create material before a company exists and later use it in the business. The review can flag whether the ownership chain has been documented and whether further steps should be considered. Preparing an assignment, obtaining signatures or negotiating with a creator is separately agreed. A report that identifies a missing document is not itself the document needed to address the gap.
Distinguish ownership from permission to use
A business may own some material while using other material under a licence. We examine the relevant distinctions within the agreed asset set. Stock images, fonts, software components and third-party datasets can have conditions affecting use, modification or onward licensing. The report can identify the supporting terms to obtain and the commercial activities that may need closer review.
For software, a document review does not automatically include a technical examination of the code or every dependency. If that work is important to the transaction, we identify the need for an appropriate technical scope. Similarly, a registration record does not establish that every unregistered contribution or contractual restriction has been resolved. The handover should make the limits of the evidence clear.
Prioritise gaps before a transaction
The report can distinguish missing records from apparent inconsistencies and substantive rights questions. Each finding can identify the asset affected, why the issue matters to the proposed use and the next action to consider. An investor, licensee or buyer may require different evidence, so the priorities should reflect the transaction rather than a generic list of ideal documents.
We also ask whether anyone has challenged ownership or whether rights have been pledged, licensed exclusively or shared with another business. Those arrangements may affect the available options. Where the matter is disputed, specialist representation and conflict checks may be necessary. We do not contact creators, make admissions or assert rights against others without an expressly agreed scope and authority.
Keep a usable record after the review
Your agreed handover can include an asset register, evidence references, unresolved questions and a remediation checklist. It can identify who within the business should retain new contracts and update the record when further work is commissioned. This gives the team a practical way to avoid recreating the same uncertainty, while recognising that a one-off review does not monitor all future development.
Fees depend on the number and type of assets, the ownership chain and the volume of documents. The GBP proposal identifies applicable VAT and separately priced technical or specialist work. Begin with the asset categories and the decision driving the review, such as investment or licensing. We will agree a proportionate document request and suitable handling arrangements before receiving confidential materials.
Official information behind this service
Sources checked on 7 September 2026. Use the linked guidance for subsequent changes.