INTA News

Data Committee Publishes Report on Data as an Intellectual Property Asset

Published: June 3, 2026

Erica Vaccarello INTA Washington, D.C., USA

The Data Committee has published Part 2 of its report, Data as an Intellectual Property (IP) Asset, examining whether existing IP laws provide meaningful protection for data and offering practical guidance on the interplay among the available forms of protection. Developed by INTA’s Data Committee and finalized during its 2024–2025 term, the report addresses how to protect data as a valuable commercial asset amid rapid technological change. The Data Protection Committee published Part 1 of the report in 2023.

The Challenge of Protecting Data as an IP Asset

The report is the result of a comprehensive survey of 11 jurisdictions—Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, India, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, the United Kingdom, and the United States—which revealed a clear conclusion: no jurisdiction currently treats data as a standalone IP right. Instead, businesses must navigate a patchwork of legal regimes, including copyright, trade secrets, contract law, privacy and data protection frameworks, unfair competition law, and, in some cases, sui generis rights.

While data is increasingly recognized as a strategic economic resource, existing protections apply only to specific manifestations of data such as structured compilations, confidential business information, or personally identifiable data. Copyright law may protect original compilations but not underlying data. Trade secret protection depends on maintaining confidentiality through reasonable measures. Contract law can define data usage rights but binds only the parties involved.

Privacy regimes regulate personal data without conferring proprietary rights. The European Union’s Database Directive provides the most developed sui generis protection, safeguarding substantial investment in database creation regardless of originality, but similar protections have not been widely adopted elsewhere.

As a result, businesses face uncertainty when attempting to protect, license, or enforce rights in data across borders. Their challenge is also to achieve strategic alignment of data governance models with rapidly evolving legislation.

The Harmonization Challenge

The report finds that while all surveyed jurisdictions offer some form of protection, approaches vary widely in scope, criteria, and enforcement. Combined with data’s inherently global and non-rivalrous nature, this fragmentation creates inefficiencies and legal uncertainty for businesses.

The report finds that while all surveyed jurisdictions offer some form of protection, approaches vary widely in scope, criteria, and enforcement.

Although harmonization may appear desirable, the report concludes that it is difficult to achieve in practice. National legal traditions, enforcement mechanisms, and policy priorities differ significantly. The study evaluates three potential harmonization models:

Property-based harmonization treats data as a proprietary asset with exclusive ownership rights, providing clarity in licensing but risking monopolization of resources essential for innovation in collaborative fields like artificial intelligence and health care;
Sui generis harmonization, modeled on the EU Database Directive, strikes a more balanced approach by protecting substantial investment while allowing public-interest exceptions, but faces significant implementation challenges due to inconsistent global adoption; and
The flexible minimum standards approach emphasizes baseline protections while allowing jurisdictions to adapt laws to local contexts, but introduces fragmented protections and uncertainty for industries operating across borders.

No single harmonization model adequately addresses the competing interests and varied business needs associated with data use and protection. Furthermore, the interests of brand owners, i.e., the members of INTA, will not necessarily be aligned on the need to protect data in the same way, as different business models have different priorities when it comes to data use and protection. Respecting these various interests, the report does not make a recommendation on the direction that harmonization should take.

The Data Committee will continue to examine this evolving issue, with the aim of increasing awareness of the available forms of protection, proposing foundational definitions, collaborating with relevant stakeholders, and developing policy positions on the protection and use of data as an IP asset.

Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of this article, readers are urged to check independently on matters of specific concern or interest.