An employee in Türkiye who makes an invention in the course of the job must notify it to the employer in writing and without delay, and the employer then has four months from the arrival of that notification to claim full or partial rights in writing — if it says nothing, or says it is not claiming, the service invention becomes a free invention and the employee may deal with it freely. Where the employer does claim, the employee is entitled to an incentive award and to reasonable compensation, and the amount is not left to negotiation in the abstract: it is calculated by multiplying the gain derived from the invention by coefficients fixed in a 2017 Regulation, band by band, according to which of three groups the invention falls into.
That framework sits in Articles 113 to 122 of Industrial Property Law No. 6769, supplemented by the Regulation on Employee Inventions, Inventions Realised in Higher Education Institutions and Inventions Arising in Publicly Supported Projects (Official Gazette of 29 September 2017, No. 30195). The rules are mandatory in the employee’s favour, which is why they are so often skipped at the drafting stage and rediscovered, expensively, years later.
Service Invention or Free Invention: The Only Two Boxes
Article 113/1 defines a service invention as an invention the employee realises as a requirement of the activity they are obliged to perform in an undertaking or public administration, or one made during the employment relationship largely on the basis of the experience and work of that undertaking or administration. Article 113/2 then defines the free invention entirely by exclusion: any invention outside paragraph 1. There is no residual third category, so every classification argument reduces to the same question — does the invention answer the description in paragraph 1?
Two extensions matter. Article 113/3 applies the employee provisions to students and to interns who serve without pay and without being tied to a fixed period — both conditions appear in the text, so the scope is narrower than “anyone doing an internship”. Article 113/4 extends the same rules to public institutions, subject to other statutory arrangements and to the parties’ contract.
For public employees, Article 113/5 sets a floor and then, in the very next sentence, a ceiling: the compensation cannot be less than one third of the income derived from the invention, but where the public institution uses the invention itself the payment cannot exceed ten times the net salary paid to the employee for the month of payment, and only once. Quoting the one-third rule without the ceiling gives a materially wrong picture of what a public-sector inventor is owed.
The Employee’s Notification: Written, Prompt and Complete
Article 114/1 requires the employee to notify a service invention to the employer in writing and without delay; joint inventors may notify together. The employer must then confirm to them, without delay and in writing, the date on which the notification arrived.
The content is prescribed. Under Article 114/2 the employee explains the technical problem, its solution and how the invention was realised, with a drawing where one helps. Article 114/3 adds the disclosures that decide later arguments about money: the undertaking’s experience and work relied on, the contributions of other employees and the form they took, the instructions received, and the employee’s own contribution share. Article 5/1 of the Regulation directs the notification to the unit the employer has designated for the purpose.
Deficient notifications are curable, but the clock runs both ways. Article 114/4 gives the employer two months from arrival to say what must be corrected, and provides that if it makes no such request the notification is deemed valid. Article 5/5 of the Regulation completes the picture: if the employee does not remedy notified deficiencies within one month, no proper notification is deemed to have been made and it must be repeated. Meanwhile Article 114/6 obliges the employee to keep the service invention confidential until it acquires the character of a free invention — an obligation overlapping with the duty of care and loyalty in Article 396 of Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, whose fourth paragraph extends secrecy beyond the end of the relationship only so far as protecting the employer’s legitimate interest requires.
The form requirement is not written as a technicality to be read down. Article 114/1 requires written notification without delay and does not list the employer’s knowledge of the invention by other means as an exception. Because Article 115/1 runs the four-month period from the arrival of the notification, where no written notification was ever made the period does not run and the invention does not become a free invention that way. Article 115/4 then makes the employee’s dispositions over the invention before the employer’s claim invalid against the employer to the extent they infringe the employer’s rights, which leaves an employee who patented the invention in his own name without notifying in a weak position. Treat the written notification as the act that creates the claim, much as a written assignment creates the ownership position discussed in our note on source-code ownership and IP assignment in Turkish software deals.
The Four-Month Window and What Fills It
Article 115/1 lets the employer claim full or partial rights and requires it to notify that claim to the employee in writing within four months of the date the employee’s notification reached it. The sentence that follows is the operative one: where no such notification is made in time, or where notification is given that no claim is being made, the service invention acquires the character of a free invention. Article 6 of the Regulation confirms that the four months run from the arrival of a notification made in due form under its Article 5 — a defective notification does not silently start the employer’s clock.
| Period | Whose obligation | Source | Consequence of letting it pass |
|---|---|---|---|
| Without delay | Employee notifies the service invention in writing | SMK 114/1 | Liability for the employer's resulting loss; compensation claim at risk |
| 2 months | Employer asks for deficiencies to be corrected | SMK 114/4 | The notification is deemed valid as made |
| 1 month | Employee corrects notified deficiencies | Reg. 5/5 | No proper notification deemed made; it must be repeated |
| 4 months | Employer claims full or partial rights in writing | SMK 115/1 | The service invention becomes a free invention |
| 2 months | Employer answers a request to take full rights or drop partial use | SMK 115/3 | The employer's right to use under the partial claim ends |
| 3 months | Employee answers notice that the employer will abandon the patent | SMK 118/2 | The employer may abandon the application or the patent |
| 3 months | Employer objects that a notified invention is not free | SMK 119/2 | The objection can no longer be raised |
| 6 months from contract end | Written objection that a contract or the amount offends equity | SMK 117/3 | The equity challenge is lost |
A full claim transfers all rights to the employer the moment the notification reaches the employee (Article 115/2). A partial claim works differently: the invention acquires the character of a free invention, but — the exception is in the next sentence — the employer may still use it on the basis of the partial right. If that use significantly impedes the employee’s own exploitation, the employee may demand either complete acquisition of the right or a waiver of the use right; if the employer does not answer within two months of receiving that demand, its right to use under the partial claim comes to an end.
Having claimed full rights, the employer must file the first patent application with the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (Article 116/1) — unless the interests of the undertaking require it to refrain, in which case the probable economic losses to the employee from not obtaining a patent count in the compensation calculation. The obligation falls away entirely in the three cases listed in Article 116/2: the invention becomes free, the employee consents to no application being made, or protection of trade secrets requires that none be made. Whether to file for a patent or a utility model is a separate strategic decision, examined in our comparison of patent and utility model protection in Türkiye; it matters here too, because the Regulation counts arbitration time from the grant of a patent or utility model.
How the Money Is Actually Calculated
Two separate payments can arise on a full claim. Article 7/2 of the Regulation provides for an incentive award in addition to compensation, payable within two months of the formality-compliance notice reaching the employer and split among joint inventors in proportion to their contribution shares. The same paragraph states that no incentive award is given to employees of public institutions, and that the award cannot be less than the net minimum wage.
The compensation itself is formulaic. Article 10/2 sets the method: multiply the gain derived from the invention by the coefficients in the table in Article 21/3, chosen according to the group the invention belongs to under Article 20/1. The gain is what the undertaking earns by using the invention plus what it earns by licensing, assigning or exchanging it (Article 10/3). Where the invention is used in-house and no gain has been determined under the corporate-tax framework to which Article 12/1 refers, Article 12/2 offers three methods — comparison, the identifiable benefit the undertaking derives, and estimation. Two details are regularly got wrong: absent a comparable free invention, Article 13/3 calculates the gain on the invention’s contribution to the product’s sale price rather than the sale price itself, and Article 14/3 provides that expenses incurred for the invention before it was realised are not deducted from the gain.
The three groups in Article 20/1 sort inventions by how much of the work was the employer’s:
| Group | Article 20/1 description |
|---|---|
| Group 1 | Inventions made on a task the employee took upon themselves, on matters not falling directly within their field of duty in the undertaking, where the undertaking made no contribution to realising the invention |
| Group 2 | Inventions not directly caused by an assignment in the undertaking, but made to meet a need identified by the undertaking or to solve its problems, or where the undertaking contributed to realising the invention |
| Group 3 | Inventions directly caused by an assignment given in the undertaking, where the undertaking's contribution to realising the invention was complete |
The contribution that lifts an invention up that scale is technical: tools and equipment, energy, raw materials, and the undertaking’s instruments and devices that contributed significantly, with labour allocated to the work treated the same way. Article 20/4 excludes the inventor’s own labour and the general overheads of research, laboratory facilities and devices incurred independently of the invention. The coefficients are then applied band by band, each band expressed as a multiple of the net minimum wage:
| Band of gain (× net minimum wage) | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Up to 1,000× | 0.0060 | 0.0040 | 0.0020 |
| 1,000× to 5,000× | 0.0050 | 0.0030 | 0.0015 |
| 5,000× to 10,000× | 0.0040 | 0.0020 | 0.0012 |
| 10,000× to 25,000× | 0.0030 | 0.0016 | 0.0010 |
| 25,000× to 50,000× | 0.0020 | 0.0012 | 0.0008 |
| 50,000× to 100,000× | 0.0010 | 0.0008 | 0.0006 |
| 100,000× to 150,000× | 0.0006 | 0.0005 | 0.0004 |
Article 21/2 caps the exercise: nothing is owed on the portion of the gain exceeding 150,000 times the net minimum wage. Because the bands float with the wage, the lira thresholds change every year, and the Regulation’s own worked example in Annex 1 is built on a stated assumption — a net minimum wage of TRY 1,400 — rather than a current figure. On that assumption a group 3 invention producing a gain of TRY 10 million yields TRY 2,800 + TRY 8,400 + TRY 3,600, or TRY 14,800 in total. The arithmetic, not the figures, is the point: the marginal rate falls sharply as the gain rises, and the group assignment is worth three times as much in the bottom band as in the top.
Timing follows the accounts. Unless otherwise agreed, Article 22/1 applies the net minimum wage of the period in which the gain was recognised in the accounts and pays in annual periods, and Article 22/2 multiplies each joint inventor’s group-based figure by their own contribution share. Under Article 23/1 the period ends, as a rule, when the patent right ends; Article 23/2 adds that where invalidity is asserted the obligation continues until the decision becomes final, unless the patent’s economic effect has disappeared to the extent that it removes the obligation.
One defence is closed off. Article 115/8 says the employer may not, after making its claim, avoid payment by asserting that the invention was not worth protecting; the exception follows immediately — if a court upholds an action brought on the ground that the invention was not protectable, the employee cannot claim compensation.
Free Inventions, Universities and Publicly Funded Projects
A free invention made during the employment relationship still carries duties. Article 119/1 requires prompt notification with enough information for the employer to judge whether the invention really is free, and Article 119/2 gives the employer three months to object in writing that it is not. That duty falls away where it is obvious the invention cannot be exploited in the employer’s field of activity (Article 119/3). Where it can be, Article 119/4 requires the employee to offer the employer the chance to benefit on appropriate terms, without granting full rights, before exploiting it otherwise; an employer that does not respond within three months loses that priority.
University inventions run on a different track. Article 121/5 disapplies Articles 115, 116 and 118 and Article 119/4 to inventions realised in higher education institutions, so the four-month window in Article 115 is not the one that operates there: Article 31 of the Regulation instead gives the institution four months from the notification to communicate its ownership decision in writing, failing which the invention is deemed free, and Article 32 requires a patent application within four months of that decision (six if inventor and institution agree). Article 121/8 fixes the revenue split so that the inventor receives at least one third.
For publicly supported projects, Article 122/1 requires notification to the supporting public institution and gives the beneficiary one year to state in writing whether it claims ownership; failing that, the institution may take ownership itself. Where the beneficiary does claim, Article 122/4 gives the institution a royalty-free licence for its own needs, waivable only if the contract says so. Article 122/6 then carves out cases R&D managers should read closely: the Article does not apply to inventions arising in R&D or design centres under Law No. 5746, or in technology development zones under Law No. 4691, where the work is not carried out under a contract with public institution support, or where the support is not project-based. Sitting in a technopark is not, by itself, what brings Article 122 into play.
Contracting Around the Rules — and the Limits
Article 427 of Law No. 6098 refers rights in service inventions to the special legislation, so the Industrial Property Law governs. Within that Law, Article 117/1 prohibits employers from making arrangements or applying practices contrary to the employee-invention provisions to the employee’s detriment, and fixes when bargaining may begin at all: in service inventions, after the patent application; in free inventions, after the employee’s notification. Article 25/1 of the Regulation adds that where a collective agreement, the employment contract or an established workplace practice contains a provision on the subject, the one more favourable to the employee applies.
Even a compliant contract can fall. Article 117/2 provides that agreements between employer and employee on service and free inventions are invalid if they are significantly incompatible with equity, and expressly extends the rule to the amount fixed as compensation. The route to raise it is narrow: under Article 117/3 objections that the contract or the determined amount offends equity must be raised in writing within six months of the end of the employment contract at the latest. That deadline is a reason to settle invention clauses when an employment relationship is being drafted or renegotiated — the same moment at which restrictive covenants and confidentiality terms are settled in employment contracts — rather than after departure. Design output from the same team runs on a different clock again: where nothing is registered, protection lasts three years from first disclosure and bites only against copying, as set out in unregistered design protection and trade fairs.
Insolvency has its own rule: Article 120 gives the employee a pre-emption right where the bankruptcy administration wants to transfer the invention separately from the undertaking, makes the compensation claim a privileged receivable, and lets the employee ask for the invention to become a free invention instead of taking the money.
Where Disputes Go
Article 24 of the Regulation channels disagreement about the amount and manner of payment into arbitration. The two-month period before that route opens runs from the grant of the patent or utility model where the employer made a full claim, and from the date it began benefiting from the invention where the claim was partial. The arbitration provisions of Civil Procedure Law No. 6100 then apply without any requirement that a written arbitration agreement exist, with Law No. 4686 governing disputes that contain a foreign element. Article 24/3 confirms the same applies where the employment relationship ended before grant, and Article 24/5 leaves the parties free to try mediation under Law No. 6325 first.
Court proceedings under the Law go before the civil and criminal courts for intellectual and industrial property rights under Article 156/1 — with, as the same paragraph provides, the civil and criminal courts of first instance hearing those matters where such courts have not been established. Disputes rarely stay in one lane: an ownership fight over a patent, a compensation claim and an infringement action can run together, which is why the notification file, the dates on it and the contribution shares recorded in it tend to decide the outcome long before anything reaches patent litigation. Getting that file right is a drafting exercise before it is a litigation one, and it belongs to the wider programme-level allocation covered on our employee inventions and R&D intellectual property page.
For both sides the practical lesson is administrative rather than doctrinal. Employers should designate the unit that receives notifications, date-stamp them in writing, diarise the two-month and four-month deadlines, and record group classification and contribution shares while the facts are fresh. Employees should notify in writing even when everyone in the building already knows what they have built, and set out contribution shares at the outset. Both steps are inexpensive at the time. Neither can be reconstructed once the four months have run.
Employee invention rules sit between intellectual property and the employment contract; the employment side is handled within our labour and employment law practice.
