R&D work traceability: protecting results and supporting a research tax credit claim

In short:

1. R&D traceability rests on 3 pillars: lab notebook, time tracking, evidence archive.
2. It protects results in the event of a dispute over the prior existence of an invention.
3. It underpins the defence of a French research tax credit (CIR) claim, set at 30% of eligible expenses up to 100 million euros.
4. INPI’s e-Soleau envelope dates a creation for 5 years, renewable once, without granting any property right.

Why trace R&D work

An R&D team continuously produces ideas, tests and results. Without traceability, two risks arise. The first concerns ownership of results: in a dispute, the date and content of an invention must be provable. The second concerns funding: an audit of the research tax credit checks the reality of the work and the expenses claimed.

The lab notebook

The lab notebook records hypotheses, tests, results and decisions as work progresses. To have evidential value, it follows a few rules:

• numbered pages, dated and signed entries;
• no torn-out pages or blank spaces;
• corrections crossed out and legible, never erased;
• regular countersignature by someone other than the author.

Electronic lab notebooks apply these principles with timestamps and electronic signatures, and make archives easier to search. The choice between paper and electronic depends mostly on the team’s habits and digital tools.

Time tracking

The French research tax credit mainly covers expenses for staff assigned to R&D work. Its rate is 30% of eligible expenses up to 100 million euros, and 5% beyond. To justify these expenses, the company must be able to show who worked on which project, and for how long. Weekly tracking per project, even a simple one, beats an after-the-fact reconstruction.

Qualifying research work

Not all technical work counts as R&D for tax purposes. The OECD Frascati Manual distinguishes basic research, applied research and experimental development. To be eligible, work must resolve a scientific or technical uncertainty that the state of the art cannot resolve. Hence the importance of documenting this state of the art at the start of the project, drawing on technical documentation, scientific publications and patents.

Dating a creation with the Soleau envelope

INPI’s Soleau envelope, available in electronic form, provides a certain date for an idea or creation. It is kept for five years, renewable once. It does not replace a patent filing, the only title granting an exclusive right of exploitation, but it is useful proof of prior existence during development.

Organising documentation project by project

Traceability is easier to maintain when each R&D project has a folder structured in the same way. A typical organisation includes:

• a project sheet: objectives, team, dates, provisional budget;
• the state of the art carried out at the start, with the references consulted;
• minutes of technical meetings and milestone reviews;
• test results and the associated raw data;
• successive versions of drawings, models and prototypes;
• an end-of-project summary: results obtained, barriers removed or not, next steps.

This folder serves several purposes: preparing the supporting file for the research tax credit, deciding whether or not to protect the results, and capitalising knowledge for future projects. A documented failure also has value: it shows that a real uncertainty existed and avoids repeating the same tests.

Paper or electronic notebook

The choice of medium depends on how the team is organised. The following table summarises the main differences:

For an electronic notebook, evidential value relies on the ability to show that entries were not modified after their date. Timestamping, signature and page-locking features are therefore essential selection criteria.

The supporting file for the research tax credit

The French research tax credit is claimed using form 2069-A-SD. In the event of an audit, the company must be able to present a supporting file that describes the work and justifies the expenses. The tax authorities can ask the ministry responsible for research for its opinion on the scientific nature of the work.

A solid file covers, for each project:

1. the context and objectives;
2. the state of the art and the limits of available knowledge;
3. the scientific or technical uncertainties to be resolved;
4. the experimental approach and the work carried out;
5. the results and the contribution to the advancement of knowledge;
6. the human and material resources used, with time spent.

To secure a project upstream, the company can request a tax ruling (rescrit), which gives the administration’s position on the eligibility of its work before the tax credit is claimed.

Protecting results: patent, secrecy or publication

Traceability also prepares the choice of protection. Three routes exist, with different logics:

• a patent grants a time-limited exploitation monopoly, in exchange for publishing the invention. It requires novelty: disclosure before filing can prevent patenting;
• trade secrets, protected in France by the law of 30 July 2018, suit know-how that is hard to copy from the product, provided reasonable protection measures are in place;
• publication, scientific or defensive, makes the invention public and prevents a third party from patenting it afterwards.

In all three cases, dated records of the work are the proof of what the company developed, and when.

Making traceability a habit

The main obstacle to traceability is not the tool but time. Engineers under project pressure postpone documentation, then reconstruct it months later, with gaps. Short, regular routines work better: a few lines in the notebook at the end of each test, a weekly time entry, and a monthly check by the project manager that the project folder is up to date. Presenting traceability as a way to save time later, when the tax credit file or a patent application has to be prepared, helps teams adopt it.

Common mistakes

The same weaknesses recur in poorly documented R&D files:

1. Reconstructing after the fact. A state of the art written at the end of the year, when preparing the claim, is less convincing than a document dated at project start.
2. Confusing development with research. Improving a product using known techniques does not resolve an uncertainty within the meaning of the Frascati Manual, even if it requires a lot of work.
3. Leaving out failures. Tests that did not succeed precisely demonstrate that an uncertainty existed, and they belong in the file.
4. Estimating time spent roughly. A flat-rate allocation of salaries between projects, without real tracking, weakens the entire justification of expenses.
5. Disclosing too early. A presentation at a trade show or a publication before a patent is filed can destroy the novelty of the invention.

Most of these mistakes are corrected by a simple routine: a few lines in the notebook at the end of each test, weekly time entry and a monthly check of the project folder by its manager.

Frequently asked questions