‌ Context & Objective: In the knowledge-based economy, a developing idea represents a highly vulnerable intellectual asset positioned midway between a mere abstract concept and a fully realized, registrable innovation. While it serves as the critical foundation for technological and commercial advancement, the traditional intellectual property system operates on the fundamental principle of the non-protection of ideas, thereby excluding these intermediate assets from exclusive legal rights. This regulatory void disproportionately affects sectors requiring extensive research and development periods, exposing inventors to the risk of misappropriation prior to commercialization and consequently stifling the incentive to innovate. The primary objective of this research is to critically evaluate and challenge the traditional theoretical foundations that deny legal protection to developing ideas. Furthermore, it seeks to explore how a tailored protection mechanism for this specific legal entity can be justified and implemented within the Iranian legal system. This research addresses the economic and strategic necessity of protection and poses the central question of whether existing legal frameworks can adequately safeguard these assets or if a novel, exceptional legal regime is required to foster a secure environment for early-stage innovations.
 ‌Method & Approach: The research strictly employs a doctrinal methodology combined with a critical analytical approach. It systematically evaluates existing legal literature, statutory provisions, and jurisprudential principles to deconstruct the traditional paradigms of intellectual property law.
 ‌Findings: The analysis demonstrates that a developing idea fundamentally differs from a mere abstract thought; it is defined by three distinct elements: it is innovative and potentially valuable, it remains in the formative stage and thus falls outside existing legal protections, and it possesses concrete applied and commercial potential resulting from significant preliminary investment. Traditional justifications for non-protection, such as the public interest argument and restrictive interpretations of Islamic jurisprudence, are systematically refuted. Specifically, doctrines like ḥurmat kitmān al-ʿilm (the religious prohibition against concealing essential knowledge) and the obligation to disseminate learning apply primarily to religious or vital public knowledge, not to commercially driven developing ideas. Furthermore, the application of Locke's labor theory supports protection, as these ideas are the direct product of substantial intellectual effort. Consequently, the developing idea aligns perfectly with the five fundamental characteristics of an intellectual asset: it holds potential economic value, is non-material, originates from mental effort, exhibits originality, and possesses sensory perceivability through preliminary documentation or prototyping. Despite this compatibility, an assessment of current Iranian legal frameworks reveals profound inadequacies. The trade secrets model structurally conflicts with the developing idea's inherent need for information exchange and collaborative testing, prioritizing absolute secrecy over developmental sharing. Similarly, the unfair competition model proves practically ineffective due to the heavy evidentiary burden required to establish subjective fault, negligence, and direct causation in cases of misappropriation.
 ‌Conclusion: To ensure the continuous flow of innovation and mitigate the risks associated with early-stage disclosure, it is vital to establish an exceptional and conditional legal mechanism for the protection of developing ideas. Rather than creating a wholly distinct legal entity, this mechanism should be integrated as a specialized subset within existing intellectual property frameworks. The protection granted must be strictly temporary, bridging the gap only until the innovation achieves full registrability. Furthermore, the allocation of rights must be highly specific: the innovator should retain absolute moral rights, while material rights must be limited to negative rights—specifically the legal capacity to prevent unauthorized third-party exploitation—and the granting of priority rights for future registration. Finally, to ensure efficiency and technical accuracy, the evaluation and verification of these developing ideas should be delegated to specialized intellectual property offices or academic technology parks, explicitly removing the initial assessment burden from general courts to prevent systemic legal delays.