Building Ukrainian Military Technology Abroad: Which Door Is Actually Open?

Your client, a European defense manufacturer or an investor behind one, wants to produce a Ukrainian system at home: an interceptor drone, a guided munition, a C2 module. Ukraine has made headlines by opening military-developed technology to industry. The Ministry of Defense reported 30 grants of rights in the last quarter of 2025 alone and opened eight technologies in July 2026, including the Octopus interceptor. It is natural to assume that a foreign company can simply apply.

It mostly cannot, or not in the way it expects. Ukrainian law offers three doors to this technology, and they open for different people, on different timelines, at a different price. This note is written for counsel advising the foreign side. It does not repeat the rules of the licensing procedure, which are publicly summarized elsewhere. It answers the questions that decide whether the deal works: which door is open to your client, what your client will have to give back, how long the right will last, and how to check that the State owns what it offers.

In short: A private foreign company cannot use the free right under Resolution No. 1310 except through its own government. A paid license under Resolution No. 834 is open to it, but may require production in Ukraine, needs export clearance even for the technical review, and gives the State a right to use the client’s modifications. The often faster route is a license from a Ukrainian company that owns the technology, provided its title is clean.

Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 1310 of October 13, 2025 runs an experiment under which the Ministry of Defense grants a free right to use technology developed by military units and institutions. Only Ukrainian state defense contractors, companies designated as critical, and companies in the Ministry’s register of contractors are eligible (paragraph 12 of the Procedure), and the right is valid only in Ukraine (paragraph 9). A foreign company cannot apply. Its Ukrainian subsidiary can, if it meets one of these criteria: neither Resolution No. 1310 nor the register rules bar foreign ownership, although links to the aggressor state or sanctions do (paragraph 24 of the Procedure approved by Cabinet Resolution No. 233 of March 17, 2021). The right still covers production in Ukraine only, and showing the documentation to the parent company’s engineers is an export (see Door 2).

There is one exception, and it runs through governments. The Ministry may grant the right, including a right to sublicense and modify, to the defense ministry of a NATO member state (paragraph 17). The condition is that the goods produced are delivered to Ukraine as military-technical assistance, or that the results of improving the technology are made available to the Ukrainian Ministry. The contract is signed with the foreign government or defense ministry, not with a company. It may, however, name foreign companies, research institutions or non-profits that receive a right of use or a sublicense. The reported licensed production of Octopus in the United Kingdom fits this model, although the legal basis has not been published.

For your client, this means the first conversation is with its own defense ministry, not with Kyiv. Three further points matter:

Export clearance. The Ukrainian Ministry exports the technology itself. It needs no Cabinet authorization for this (paragraph 4 of the Regulation approved by Cabinet Resolution No. 838 of June 8, 1998) and receives a general or open export permit (paragraph 18 of the Procedure).

The fast track is narrower than it looks. Ukrainian law offers a simplified export procedure with a 15-day decision where a transfer is made under an international treaty of Ukraine that names the goods, the exporters and the end users (Article 20 of the Law on State Control of International Transfers of Military and Dual-Use Goods, the Export Control Law). The draft treaty must be cleared by the State Service for Export Control before signature (paragraphs 3, 7 and 10 of the Procedure approved by Cabinet Resolution No. 6 of January 7, 2026). If the treaty contains the foreign side’s guarantees against re-export or transfer to third parties and of use only for the purposes of the treaty, separate export-control guarantee documents are not required (paragraph 12). In our view, the license contract under paragraph 17 does not become an international treaty merely because a foreign ministry signs it. Under the Law on International Treaties of Ukraine, a treaty must be governed by international law and concluded under that Law (Articles 1 and 2). The fast track therefore requires an underlying intergovernmental or interdepartmental agreement.

Sales to third parties. In our view, paragraph 17 does not cover sales of the output to third countries unless the contract expressly allows them. If your client’s business case depends on export sales, this must be negotiated at government level.

Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 834 of June 17, 2026, in force since July 2, 2026, allows the Ministry of Defense and other bodies managing military property to license intellectual property the State owns through the Ministry or that body. Foreign persons are eligible (paragraph 6 of the Procedure). Exclusive and sole licenses are granted only through a competition with a five-member panel, three of whom are independent experts (paragraphs 12 and 37). Three features change the picture for a foreign licensee.

The license may require production in Ukraine (paragraph 11). For a client that wants to manufacture abroad, this is the first term to check in the announcement or draft agreement. It may also be the term that makes a joint venture company in Ukraine the more realistic structure.

Looking at the drawings is already an export. The Export Control Law treats as an export not only shipping goods but also “disclosure of technology to a foreigner or a stateless person,” including inside Ukraine (Article 1). Technology means any non-public information needed to develop, produce or use military items, including drawings, specifications, software and technical assistance. The licensing body may let a prospective licensee review the technical documentation, where it exists, under a non-disclosure agreement before signing (paragraph 8). In our view, when the prospective licensee is foreign, that review itself requires an export permit, although no license exists yet. The disclosing body is the exporter. A permit decision takes up to 30 days, or up to 90 days where interagency review is needed (paragraph 11 of the Procedure approved by Cabinet Resolution No. 1807 of November 20, 2003). Budget for this before your client’s engineers fly to Kyiv. The registration and permit route is set out on our page on dual-use and export control in Ukraine.

If the technology is classified, your client’s engineers will not see it at all. Access to state secrets is limited to Ukrainian citizens with a security clearance. Foreigners receive access only in exceptional cases, under an international treaty ratified by Parliament or by a written order of the President (Article 27 of the Law on State Secrets). An export permit does not change this. A Ukrainian company working with classified technology also needs a special permit from the Security Service, which is refused if the company’s head is not a Ukrainian citizen or lacks clearance (Article 20). If your client invests in such a company, its right to appoint the chief executive has a direct legal cost. This is one of the few places where Ukrainian law already limits a foreign investor’s control without a general screening regime; on that wider question, see Ukraine’s FDI Screening: What the New EU Regulation Changes.

The licensor may need its own export authorization. As a rule, exporting military goods requires a standing authorization from the Cabinet of Ministers, and the Regulation approved by Resolution No. 838 applies this not only to companies but also to state defense customers such as the Ministry (paragraph 1). The Cabinet has expressly exempted Ministry exports under Resolution No. 1310 and under the parallel AI-data experiment of Resolution No. 310 (paragraph 4). No such exemption exists for licenses under Resolution No. 834. In our view, unless the licensing body already holds an authorization, licensing to a foreign company may require one, or a new exemption. Whether the Ministry holds one is not public. This is a question to put to the licensor at the outset, not after the competition.

Not sure whether your client should go through its own defense ministry or bid for a license under Resolution No. 834? Tell us the technology and where the client wants to produce — we will say which door is realistically open and which export clearance comes first.

The fastest route frequently bypasses the Ministry altogether. If a Ukrainian company owns its technology, it can license it to your client under an ordinary contract. Since July 8, 2026, a company that owns the rights to a technology and is a state defense contractor or a registered contractor does not need the Cabinet export authorization (paragraph 4 of the Regulation approved by Resolution No. 838, as amended by Resolution No. 875). This exemption applies during martial law and for six months after it ends. Defence City residents that develop or manufacture military goods have a separate statutory exemption (paragraph 2¹ of the Final Provisions of the Export Control Law). The company still needs registration with the State Service for Export Control and a permit for the transfer.

The same Resolution No. 875 created a separate wartime export route, valid for the same period. It covers military and dual-use technologies, as well as military goods that have been fielded or codified, under contracts of at least UAH 15 million, with no threshold for components (paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Procedure approved by Resolution No. 875). Exports to states that have signed a “Drone Deal” agreement with Ukraine skip the interagency export control commission, and the permit decision takes up to 30 calendar days (paragraphs 5, 16 and 18). The price is high. The importing state must guarantee that the technology is licensed rather than sold, that any re-export needs a Ukrainian permit, and that information on every modification of goods made with the technology is passed to Ukraine (paragraph 11). The permit fee for a technology export is 20 percent of the value of the goods to be produced under the license, at State procurement prices, and another 20 percent is due when such goods are sold to third countries (paragraphs 11 and 12; item 5¹ of the annex to Cabinet Resolution No. 746 of July 13, 2011). According to the Ukrainian Council of Gunsmiths, no permit had been issued under this route by the end of August 2026.

Everything here depends on whether the company really owns what it sells. Since December 12, 2025, rights to software created by servicemen in the course of their duties belong to the State, and so does the right to register their inventions and designs unless the State lets the four-month decision period lapse; intellectual property created with State money as a result of defense procurement belongs to the State customer (Article 36(2) of the Law on Defense Procurement). We set out how to test this in Who Owns Ukrainian Defense Technology?

This is where the Ukrainian regimes differ most from what a European manufacturer expects, and where the client’s own intellectual property is exposed.

Under Resolution No. 1310, a holder that is allowed to modify the technology must transfer the results to the Ministry for free use “without limitation as to territory, time or manner of use” (paragraph 8). The developer also updates the documentation based on proposals from users and informs the other recipients of the changes (paragraph 16). In our view, an improvement made by one user can therefore reach every other user of the same technology. Paragraph 17 carries a lighter version into the government route: where the right is granted to improve the technology, the results must be available to the Ukrainian Ministry.

Under Resolution No. 834, a license that permits modification must give the licensing body a right to use the results (paragraph 15). The scope of that right is not fixed, so it is negotiable: use for the State’s own needs only, or also licensing to others.

Contractors of military units lose more. Under Ministry of Defense Order No. 294, in force since October 9, 2026, a military unit may engage a contractor to modify or improve technology the Ministry owns only if the contract transfers to the State all exclusive economic rights to the resulting changes and improvements (Section III, paragraph 2).

The practical answer is to ring-fence the client’s background technology before any work starts: define what counts as a modification of the licensed technology, keep the client’s own developments in separate documentation, and record dates of creation. We discuss how to structure this on our page on technology transfer and R&D investment in Ukraine.

Will your client modify the technology? Send us the draft license — we will mark what the State gets under it and how to keep the client’s own developments separate.

Rights under Resolution No. 1310 cannot outlast the experiment, which runs while martial law is in force and in any case no longer than two years from October 21, 2025 (paragraph 9 of the Procedure; paragraph 1 of the Resolution). Resolution No. 834 itself applies during martial law and for three months after it ends. What happens to licenses granted under it once its own term ends is not stated; in our view, the contracts survive, but their renewal and any competition rules would need a new legal basis.

If your client is relying on a Ukrainian partner’s right under Resolution No. 1310, there is an additional risk. A transitional rule added by Law No. 4585-IX limits Ministry licenses and permits issued before July 2, 2026 to one year. In our view, it may apply to rights under Resolution No. 1310, which the Ministry itself calls licenses (it reported granting 30 licenses to manufacturers in the last quarter of 2025, announcement of July 10, 2026), so such rights could end on July 2, 2027 even if the experiment is extended.

Resolution No. 834 says only that the State’s acquisition of rights “is confirmed in accordance with legislation” (paragraph 4) and does not oblige the licensor to show anything. In practice:

Software and documentation are protected without registration, and registration is voluntary, so the absence of a register entry proves nothing. Ask for the orders, assignments or job descriptions showing the work was created in the course of a serviceman’s duties, or the contract under which rights were transferred.

Inventions may exist only as applications. Substantive examination may be requested up to three years after filing (Article 16(19) of the Law on Inventions and Utility Models), so a license may in substance cover know-how and a future patent.

Utility models are granted without examination of novelty and are easier to invalidate.

Secret inventions may be licensed only with the approval of the State Expert on Secrets (Article 28). Even ordinary register entries on defense-related inventions and utility models may be closed to the public during martial law and for a year after it, at the request of the competent body (paragraph 5 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law on Inventions and Utility Models).

Foreign filing of an invention made in Ukraine is possible only after a Ukrainian application and three months without notice of classification (Article 37). A client planning to patent improvements in its own country should build this into the timeline.

1. Which door is this: a government contract under paragraph 17, a license under Resolution No. 834, or a license from a Ukrainian company that owns the technology?
2. Does the license require production in Ukraine?
3. Who will obtain the export permit for the technical review, and does the licensing body hold, or need, a Cabinet authorization?
4. Is any part of the technology classified, and if so, who on the client’s side may lawfully see it?
5. Which documents prove the State’s title to each component?
6. What exactly must be given back: modifications only, or anything the client develops on the platform?
7. What happens to the license when martial law ends?

We act as Ukrainian counsel alongside the client’s lead firm on these transactions; see our pages on defense technology and military procurement in Ukraine and investing in Ukraine. This note is not legal advice. Ukrainian law is stated as of October 20, 2026.