Read
2 minute read
September 15, 2026
2 minute read
Many ownership disputes in manufacturing and product-development agreements are not really about ownership. They are about platform leakage.
Platform leakage occurs when a customer's ownership provisions are drafted so broadly that they begin to capture portions of a supplier's underlying technology platform. That platform may include manufacturing processes, software architecture, engineering methods, tooling know-how, diagnostic routines, or other reusable technology that the supplier uses across multiple customers and product lines. While a customer may view broad ownership language as protection for its investment, suppliers often see the same language as a threat to their core intellectual property assets.
This dynamic frequently explains why negotiations become difficult when discussing "improvements" or "developed IP." A customer may believe it is simply asking to own what it paid for. The supplier may believe it is being asked to give away technology that extends well beyond the specific project. The disagreement is often less about legal drafting and more about protecting future business opportunities.
At the same time, customers have a legitimate concern of their own: dependency. If a supplier retains ownership of technology that is embedded in a product, will the customer be able to continue manufacturing, support products in the field, qualify a second source, or respond to supply disruptions? In many negotiations, the real challenge is balancing the supplier's desire to protect its platform against the customer's need for operational freedom. A manufacturing or supply agreement must carefully avoid creating a customer dependency problem when trying to solve a platform leakage issue.
The most successful agreements recognize that ownership and operational rights are different concepts. A supplier can retain ownership of its platform technology while granting the customer broad rights to make, have made, modify, repair, support, and sell products that depend on that technology. In many cases, those operational rights are far more important to the customer than ownership itself. A carefully structured license often provides a better business outcome than a prolonged fight over who owns every improvement created during a project.
When ownership negotiations become contentious, it is worth pausing to ask a simple question: Are we really negotiating ownership, or are we negotiating platform protection? The answer often reveals that both sides are trying to solve different business problems. Suppliers want to protect reusable technology. Customers want to preserve freedom to operate. The best agreements accomplish both.
Key takeaway: The goal should not be to eliminate platform leakage at the expense of customer flexibility, or vice versa. The most effective agreements clearly separate product-specific developments from reusable platform technology and ensure that customers obtain the operational rights necessary to support the product throughout its lifecycle.
