“foreground IP”和“background IP”指的是两种类型的知识产权，主要用以减少确定产权归属、减少因产权引起的纠纷。

随着近年来技术合作形式的频繁化和多样化，成果权属纠纷的类型也越来越多，国外在实践经验基础之上，于2001年提出了“foreground IP”、“background IP”、“sideground IP”和“postground IP”。

“foreground IP”前景知识产权。前景知识产权就是我们熟知的技术开发过程中产生的新的研究成果，具体指在技术合作期间所产生的知识产权。Foreground intellectual property is a newer property that develops over a project's duration. This can be developed by one person or multiple people, although it's normally by one party. Legal issues can come up when the foreground intellectual property is jointly developed by parties. Foreground intellectual property is intellectual property that's developed, made, or created in the performance of the original satellite contract or contract and is required for any deliverable item to be used.

“background IP”背景知识产权。技术合作之前由合作一方产生或持有的，或者一方在技术开发合同有效期内产生或持有但是超出合同范围或与合同无关的知识产权。Background intellectual property is any IP that’s created, invested, authored or developed and owned or created by the owner before the date of the agreement.

“sideground IP”侧景知识产权。与合作研发项目平行进行的其他项目所产生的知识产权。Sideground knowledge/IP is knowledge/IP that is relevant to a collaborative venture or open innovation project, but produced outside the project by any of the partners during the project's tenure.

“postground IP”后景知识产权。合作研发项目结束后，合作双方研发出的新知识产权。Postground knowledge/IP is knowledge/IP that is relevant to a collaborative venture or open innovation project that is produced by any of the partners after the project ends.

以下为某仲裁中有关相关知识产权的界定，供参考：

As concerns the misappropriation by way of patent registration, as set out above, Respondent had no right to register patents on neither Foreground nor Background IP, so it can be deemed to have misappropriated Claimant’s know-how by the mere fact of having registered in its own name and by continuing to hold patents relating to know-how received under the August Agreements. In this regard, whilst it is irrelevant whether the registered patents referred to Foreground IP or Background IP (since the right to register patents for both remained with Claimant under Article 6.1), an actual misappropriation can only relate to intellectual property supplied under the August Agreements. The use of any know-how or other intellectual property right transferred to Respondent by Claimant under the Prior Agreements does not automatically fall under the August Agreements or its Article 6 (unless it constitutes Background IP in the sense of Article 6.2 of the August Agreements) and is thus in principle outside the scope of jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal.

关于以专利注册方式进行的盗用，如上所述，被申请人无权就前景知识产权或背景知识产权进行注册专利。因此，仅被申请人以自己名义注册根据三月协议获得的专有技术相关专利，并继续持有该等专利的这一事实，便可视为被申请人盗用了申请人的专有技术。在此方面，虽然已注册的专利是指前景知识产权还是背景知识产权并不重要（因为根据第6.1条，两者的专利注册权均属于申请人），但实际的盗用只能涉及根据三月协议提供的知识产权。对申请人根据先前协议转让给被申请人的任何专有技术或其他知识产权的使用不自动受三月协议或其第6条的规管（除非所述专有技术或知识产权构成三月协议第6.2条项下的背景知识产权），因此，原则上不属于仲裁庭的管辖范围。