ip-clause-review

To review IP clauses for assignment gaps, the Skill checks UK statutory formalities like CDPA 1988 s.90, TMA 1994 s.24, and PA 1977 s.30, then flags legally ineffective language such as an agreement to assign versus an effective assignment.

An agreement to assign copyright under CDPA 1988 s.90 is a future promise, whereas an effective assignment requires specific statutory formalities. The Skill identifies this distinction during IP clause review and flags clauses that are legally ineffective.

You can generate a risk-prioritised memo with redlines by pasting your agreement text into the Skill. It produces a clause-by-clause analysis ranging from Critical to Low risk, explaining warranty issues and suggesting corrective redline language.

Yes, you can check cross-clause consistency for IP allocation across vendor MSAs and SOWs. The Skill verifies consistency across licence, warranty, indemnity, and termination clauses to ensure IP allocation and grant scope are validated.

The IP clause review does cover moral rights waivers and post-Brexit UK and EU jurisdiction splits. It notes these UK-specific issues alongside employed-works default rules during the clause-by-clause analysis process.

Suitable agreements for IP ownership and trade marks validation include employment, consulting, SOW and services, vendor MSAs, and licensing or collaboration documents where IP allocation and grant scope must be validated against a configured practice profile.