Intellectual Property Rights in Space Development: Comparative Lessons from the United States and the Republic of Korea

This paper examines the intellectual property (IP) provisions under the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Space Act Agreements (SAAs) ― specifically Article 13 of the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) Agreement and Article 10 of the Space Act Agreement for Collaborations for Commercial Space Capabilities (SAA-QA-14-18883) ― and compares them with Article 19 of the Additional Special Terms and Conditions for the Prime Contract for the Development and Production of the Next-Generation Launch Vehicle in the Republic of Korea. The purpose of this comparative study is to draw policy implications for the strategic management of IP rights in space development. As the global space industry shifts from government-driven research to commercialization led by private actors, the importance of a balanced IP governance framework has grown substantially. However, the unique characteristics of space activities create complex challenges in IP management. In the United States, NASA’s SAAs provide a structured framework for ownership of inventions, data rights, licensing mechanisms, commercialization, and protection of public interests. These arrangements create a balanced model that promotes private innovation while safeguarding public interests. In contrast, Article 19 of the Additional Special Terms and Conditions in the Republic of Korea allocates IP rights primarily to the government-funded research institution, granting it the broad authority over matters relating to national security, foreign affairs, and similar concerns. While this structure ensures strong public oversight, it also constrains private-sector commercialization incentives and the flexibility of international collaboration. Moreover, the absence of a clear licensing framework and the restrictions on post-contract utilization may undermine the international competitiveness of the Republic of Korea’s space industry. Based on this analysis, the paper proposes key policy recommendations: (1) introducing a clear licensing framework modeled after NASA’s practices; (2) strengthening private-sector rights through equitable royalty-sharing mechanisms; (3) enhancing alignment with international norms to facilitate global cooperation and foreign investment; (4) expanding post-contract rights to encourage commercialization beyond project completion. In conclusion, IP rights in space development should be regarded as strategic assets that shape national competitiveness and the sustainability of the industrial ecosystem. The comparative study of the United States and the Republic of Korea demonstrates that a well-balanced IP governance framework can both foster private innovation and protect public interests. Reforming the Additional Special Terms and Conditions in line with these insights will enable the Republic of Korea to reinforce public-private partnerships and build a sustainable innovation ecosystem in the global space industry.