Russian court practice on worldwide freezing orders and Russian-situated assets in the technology and software sector: 2026 update

Russian courts entered 2026 with a noticeably firmer position on worldwide freezing orders and Russian-situated assets in the technology and software sector. Following a series of first-instance and appellate decisions issued in the second half of 2025, the arbitrazh courts have refined their approach to recognising and giving effect to foreign-obtained freezing injunctions where the target assets are intangible in nature: software licences, SaaS revenue streams, platform accounts, and registered intellectual property rights held in Russia. For foreign creditors who obtained worldwide freezing orders from English, Dutch, or other European courts expecting straightforward recognition in Russia, the picture that has emerged from domestic practice is materially different from what those orders anticipated.

The most consequential development concerns the treatment of intangible technology assets as a category distinct from conventional property. Under Russian civil procedure rules and the framework governing recognition of foreign interim relief, arbitrazh courts have historically applied a broadly bilateral approach: where a treaty basis for recognition exists, the court will consider the merits of the foreign order; where no treaty applies, the court exercises its own discretion as to whether to impose equivalent interim measures domestically. What has shifted in the period leading into 2026 is the courts' characterisation of technology and software assets.

Courts have increasingly taken the position that software licences granted to Russian legal entities, SaaS subscription agreements where the service recipient is Russian-registered, and intellectual property rights registered with Rospatent are assets sited in Russia irrespective of the jurisdiction of the contracting or owning entity. This classification has two practical effects. First, a foreign worldwide freezing order that does not specifically name these asset classes in a form recognisable to a Russian court may be treated as inapplicable to them. Second, and more significantly, the courts have applied a heightened proportionality assessment to requests for domestic interim measures in technology disputes, weighing the potential disruption to ongoing software services and platform operations against the creditor's claimed risk of dissipation.

The net result for foreign creditors in the technology sector is that obtaining a worldwide freezing order from a foreign court is no longer a sufficient first step in protecting Russian-situated assets. Parallel domestic proceedings in Russia are, as of the current practice, a practical necessity rather than a contingency option. Creditors who delay initiating Russian interim relief proceedings risk the dissipation or restructuring of technology assets before any recognition analysis is completed – a window that has proven commercially consequential in several recent restructurings.

"

If you have obtained or are seeking a worldwide freezing order with Russian technology or software assets in scope — make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76

"

The creditors most directly affected are those holding judgments or arbitral awards against Russian technology companies, or against foreign holding structures that own Russian-registered software IP or platform operations. This includes trade creditors of SaaS businesses with Russian subscriber bases, licensing creditors whose counterparty is a Russian entity, and institutional creditors whose security package includes rights over Russian-registered intellectual property.

Three specific creditor categories warrant attention. First, creditors in cross-border software licensing disputes where the debtor has restructured its operational layer inside Russia while retaining the licensing entity offshore. In these arrangements, the Russian-sited assets — the registered rights and the revenue generated within Russia — may be the most accessible category, yet the most difficult to reach via a foreign-obtained order. Second, foreign platforms that have licensed technology to Russian partners and now face non-payment: their contractual rights exist under foreign law, but the software and any registered derivative works may be sited in Russia under the domestic classification described above. Third, creditors in insolvency-adjacent situations where the Russian entity is approaching, or has entered, restructuring proceedings: Russian insolvency legislation provides its own interim relief framework that may pre-empt or displace a foreign freezing order once formal proceedings commence.

For all three groups, the timeline implications are significant. Russian arbitrazh courts processing domestic interim relief applications in commercial matters involving technology assets have, in practice, operated on timelines that vary materially by circuit and subject matter complexity. The Siberian and Ural circuits, which handle a disproportionate share of technology-company disputes given the concentration of software development operations in those regions, have generally been somewhat more receptive to creditor-side interim applications than the Moscow circuit in comparable factual scenarios – though this remains a matter of case-by-case judicial discretion rather than established doctrine.

For foreign law firms advising creditors with Russian technology assets in scope, the firm's Asset Tracing & Recovery practice can provide Russian-counsel support on parallel domestic proceedings and direct coordination on the overlap between the foreign order and any domestic measures sought. A practical guide to the overall worldwide freezing order procedure in the Russian context is available at A practical guide to worldwide freezing orders in Russia.

The practical response to the 2026 position has three components, each of which needs to be addressed in sequence rather than in parallel.

The first is a classification audit of the Russian-situated assets within scope of any existing or contemplated worldwide freezing order. This means identifying, for each asset category: whether it is characterised as Russia-sited under domestic rules; whether it is held by a Russian-registered entity; and whether any existing registration with Rospatent or a Russian regulatory body affects its status. Software licences granted by the Russian entity are generally Russia-sited; licences granted to the Russian entity by a foreign licensor require separate analysis.

The second is a procedural assessment of the recognition pathway. Where a bilateral treaty basis exists, the recognition route is available but subject to the heightened proportionality review described above. Where no treaty applies — as is the case for the majority of foreign creditors holding English High Court or Dutch court orders — the available route is a domestic application for equivalent interim measures before the competent Russian arbitrazh court, supported by evidence of the foreign proceedings and the risk of dissipation specific to the technology asset category.

The third is timing. Russian procedure permits the filing of interim relief applications at the time a substantive claim is lodged or in support of recognised foreign proceedings. The window between obtaining a foreign order and any dissipation of Russian-situated technology assets can be short, particularly where the debtor is aware of the foreign proceedings. Obtaining early Russian counsel involvement — before the foreign order is sealed, where possible — allows the domestic application to be filed at the earliest procedural opportunity. The law and practice of worldwide freezing orders in the Russian context, including the evidentiary standard for dissipation risk, is addressed in detail at The law and practice of worldwide freezing orders in Russia.

For creditors whose matter also involves insolvency-adjacent questions, the firm's Restructuring & Insolvency practice works alongside the asset tracing team on matters where Russian restructuring proceedings intersect with foreign creditor enforcement. A summary of representative matters in this area is available at Matters.

For creditors at the assessment stage of a worldwide freezing order strategy over Russian technology assets, early engagement with Russian counsel is the factor that most consistently determines whether interim relief can be obtained before the asset position changes.

"

To discuss the procedural strategy for a worldwide freezing order involving Russian-situated technology or software assets — make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76

"

Two areas of genuine doctrinal uncertainty should be flagged for creditors and their advisers before finalising enforcement strategy.

The first is the position of EAEU-registered assets. Russia's participation in the Eurasian Economic Union creates a parallel framework for the movement and registration of intellectual property rights across member states. Where a software product or platform has been registered or commercially deployed across multiple EAEU jurisdictions — Kazakhstan, Belarus, Armenia, or Kyrgyzstan in addition to Russia — it is not yet settled whether a Russian domestic freezing order extends to the EAEU-sited component, or whether separate applications in each jurisdiction are required. Court guidance on this question remained inconsistent as at the close of 2025, and a definitive position is unlikely to emerge until a higher court addresses the point directly.

The second is the treatment of cloud-hosted assets with Russian data localisation implications. Under Russian data localisation requirements, certain categories of data generated by Russian users must be stored on servers physically located in Russia. Where that data constitutes a commercial asset — as it does in most SaaS and platform business models — its status as a Russia-sited asset for freezing purposes raises questions that domestic courts have not yet resolved consistently. The intersection of data protection law and asset-freezing procedure is a developing area that requires specialist analysis on a matter-by-matter basis.

"— Elizaveta Razina, Senior Lawyer, Practice Lead — IP Enforcement, Vetrov & Partners"

Q: What specifically changed in Russian court practice regarding worldwide freezing orders and technology or software assets in 2026? A: The principal change is in how Russian arbitrazh courts characterise intangible technology assets — software licences, SaaS revenue streams, and Rospatent-registered intellectual property rights — as Russia-sited assets for the purposes of interim relief. Courts have applied a heightened proportionality review to foreign-obtained freezing orders that do not specifically address this asset class in a form recognisable under Russian procedure. The practical consequence is that a worldwide freezing order obtained from a foreign court is no longer sufficient on its own to protect Russian-situated technology assets: a parallel domestic application for interim measures has become a practical necessity in the current environment.

Q: Which foreign creditors are most affected by this development? A: The creditors most exposed are those holding foreign court orders or arbitral awards against Russian technology companies or foreign holding structures that own Russian-registered software IP or platform operations. This includes trade creditors in software licensing disputes, licensing creditors whose counterparty is a Russian entity, and institutional creditors whose security includes registered intellectual property rights in Russia. Creditors in insolvency-adjacent situations face additional complexity, as Russian restructuring proceedings may displace or pre-empt foreign interim relief once they formally commence.

Q: What should a foreign creditor do if it has already obtained a worldwide freezing order that covers Russian technology assets? A: The immediate priority is a classification audit of the Russian-situated assets within the order's scope, followed by an assessment of the recognition pathway available under Russian procedure. Where no bilateral treaty applies — as is typical for English High Court or Dutch court orders — the available route is a domestic application for equivalent interim measures before the competent Russian arbitrazh court. Timing is critical: the window between a foreign order being sealed and any restructuring of Russian-situated technology assets can be short, and Russian counsel should be engaged as early as possible in the enforcement strategy.

• A practical guide to worldwide freezing orders in Russia
• The law and practice of worldwide freezing orders in Russia
• Asset tracing and recovery in Russia: an overview for foreign creditors

Vetrov & Partners is a Russian boutique law firm established in 2009. The firm is recognised by Pravo-300 — Russia's principal legal directory — for eight consecutive years, and is listed as a trusted adviser by the German Consulate General in Novosibirsk.

The firm's Asset Tracing & Recovery practice advises foreign creditors, institutional investors, and foreign law firms on the full spectrum of Russian enforcement proceedings — from interim relief and recognition of foreign orders to parallel domestic claims and cross-border coordination. With over 1,000 matters handled since inception, the team combines deep procedural knowledge of the arbitrazh court system with direct partner involvement on every engagement. The firm's base in Novosibirsk provides independent positioning across the Siberian and Ural federal districts, where a significant proportion of Russian technology-sector disputes are heard.

Enquiries: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp / Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76 | t.me/vitvetcom

This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice under Russian or any other applicable law. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Vetrov & Partners is a Russian-qualified law firm. For matters governed by foreign law or requiring local admission in another jurisdiction, we collaborate with trusted counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@vetrovpartners.com.

— Elizaveta Razina Senior Lawyer, Practice Lead — IP Enforcement, Vetrov & Partners vetrovpartners.com/razina/