Technology Transfer Agreements: Changes to INPI Registration

The Argentine Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) issued Resolution 38/2026, which became enforceable on February 10, 2026, thus repealing INPI Resolution P-328/2005 and reshaping the procedure for registering technology transfer agreements in Argentina. The new framework applies both to applications for registering new agreements and to proceedings that were already pending before INPI at the time it became enforceable.

INPI Resolution 38/2026 confirms that agreements eligible for registration are those falling within the scope of Law 22426, article 1: agreements relating to the transfer, assignment, or license of trademarks and technology. For these purposes, “technology” is defined as patents, industrial models and designs, and any technical knowledge intended for manufacturing a product or providing a service, as set forth in Regulatory Decree 580/81. In addition, the agreements must relate, totally or partially, to one of the scenarios in article 104(a)(1) or (2) of the Income Tax Law, which includes payments for technical assistance, engineering or consulting services, whether available in Argentina or not, as well as payments derived from the assignment or licensing of industrial property rights.

One of the most relevant changes the new regime introduces is eliminating the so-called “negative list” in INPI Resolution 328/2005, which expressly excluded certain services from registering. While removing this list broadens the universe of potentially registrable agreements, it also causes interpretative uncertainties, particularly regarding the need to register technical assistance or consulting agreements in areas expressly excluded from registration.

From a procedural standpoint, Resolution 38/2026 introduces a significant simplification of formal requirements. It will no longer be required to apostille agreements executed abroad or legalize them in the corresponding consulate. In addition, it will not be necessary to provide evidence of the applicant’s authority to act, to submit accounting certifications of outstanding amounts corresponding to prior fiscal periods, and detailed lists of licensed trademarks or patents.

However, applicants will still have to provide a general description of the technology acquired or the services retained. INPI will now presume the existence of the agreement without requesting evidence of its actual execution, which is particularly relevant for agreements implemented through offer/letter mechanisms or purchase orders. Moreover, the terms to respond to office actions have been reduced to four periods of 30 days each.

Finally, the Resolution reiterates that the procedure is governed by the principle of sworn statements as regards the accuracy and truthfulness of the information and documentation submitted. Consequently,  Law 22426, article 14—which refers to the sanctions provided under the tax procedure regime and the Criminal Code—will apply.

In this context, and in the absence of an express negative list, it is advisable to assess on a case-by-case basis the convenience and need of registering certain agreements. It should be especially evaluated whether the services retained involve a transfer of technology within the meaning of Law 22426. While the INPI’s new approach provides greater flexibility, it also increases the applicant’s responsibility when defining the legal characterization of the agreement and the information declared, thus calling for a strategic assessment of registration and proper documentation of the services involved.