According to the provisions of Article 1062 of the Civil Code, the intellectual property gains obtained by husband and wife during the marriage relationship shall be owned by both husband and wife.
That is to say, during the marriage relationship, as long as the husband and wife do not agree that the income after marriage belongs to each other, then the income obtained by either party due to intellectual property rights belongs to the joint property of the husband and wife, and the other party has the right to share it.
However, because intellectual property rights are intellectual achievements, the generation and acquisition of their rights are often out of sync with the realization of property interests, or even separated for a long time. If the marital status of the parties changes during this period, it will bring difficulties to the identification of the property rights and rights of intellectual property rights.
The key to judge whether the intellectual property acquired by one party after divorce belongs to one party's personal property or the joint property of husband and wife depends on whether the intellectual property was acquired before or after divorce.
According to the provisions of Article 12 of the Interpretation of Marriage Law, in the case that both husband and wife have not agreed that the property acquired shall be owned by each other, as long as the property interests actually obtained or clearly obtainable during the marriage relationship are the common property of husband and wife.
In other words, even the property interests of intellectual property acquired by one party after divorce should be regarded as the joint property of husband and wife as long as they are clearly available before divorce.
If the income of intellectual property acquired during the marriage relationship is unclear, it cannot be considered that the income belongs to the same property of the husband and wife at the time of divorce.
Because the income of intellectual property has certain anticipation and uncertainty, if the obligee does not put its intellectual property into use, its income is not clear, and it cannot be considered that * * * is separated from property.