TO PATENT OR NOT TO PATENT

Deciding whether to pursue a patent is one of the most significant strategic choices an inventor or entrepreneur must make. It is not simply a legal checkbox: it is a business decision that influences product development, go-to-market timing, fundraising and long-term commercial strategy. Put bluntly, you do not have to get a patent to make or sell a product - many successful ventures have launched without one - but in many situations a patent is the difference between a fleeting idea and a valuable, licensable, investable asset.

​

At its simplest, a patent grants an inventor an exclusive legal right to prevent others from making, using, selling or importing the patented invention for a limited period (typically up to 20 years). That exclusivity is both the patent’s greatest strength and its principal cost. Filing, prosecuting and maintaining patents requires time, expertise and money. The questions every innovator should ask are therefore: what am I trying to achieve; who are my competitors; what is my commercial route; and can I afford to pursue and enforce patent rights if required?

​

One of the clearest arguments for patenting is risk mitigation. Without a patent, you run the real risk that someone else could file for and obtain legal rights over technology that is essentially identical to - or overlaps with - your idea. Once a patent is granted to another party, your freedom to operate can be severely compromised. A competitor’s patent can block your product from market in a particular jurisdiction or force you into costly licensing deals or defensive redesigns. In many industries - medical devices, advanced manufacturing, chemicals, electronics - the cost of being shut out of a market or being forced into redesigns far outweighs the costs of a robust patent strategy.

​

Closely linked to risk is the issue of commercial credibility. If your plan includes licensing the invention, selling the business or raising external capital, patents are often essential. Manufacturers, distributors and investors do not typically buy or back “ideas” - they buy exclusive, enforceable rights that can be defended and monetised. A patent is tangible proof that you control something of value. It can be presented in term sheets, due diligence packs and licensing negotiations as a transferable asset. Without it, persuading a sophisticated third party to invest money, agree to exclusive manufacturing deals or enter licensing conversations becomes markedly harder.

There are also strategic advantages to filing early.

 

A first filing secures a priority date - a legal timestamp that determines who has the earliest claim to an invention. This is critical in “first-to-file” jurisdictions and it also preserves your rights while you decide on international filing strategies. Moreover, the “patent pending” status provides a useful marketing and deterrent tool: it signals to the market that you have initiated formal protection and can deter opportunistic copying while the application is processed.

​

But the case against patenting is equally real and deserves careful consideration. Patent prosecution is expensive; drafting high-quality specifications and claims requires skilled attorneys and iterative work with technical experts and international protection multiplies costs very quickly. If your product life cycle is short - for example, in fast-moving consumer electronics or seasonal fashion - the cost and delay involved in obtaining meaningful patent protection may not be justified. By the time a patent is granted, market opportunities may have moved on.

​

There are also industries in which secrecy, speed and iterative improvement trump formal IP rights. Trade secrets can be a more appropriate protection mechanism when an invention is hard to reverse-engineer and when confidentiality can be maintained - think proprietary manufacturing processes or secret formulations. A well-protected trade secret can last indefinitely (for as long as it remains secret), whereas a patent requires disclosure of the invention to the public in return for limited-term exclusivity. For some founders, maintaining competitive advantage through continuous innovation, rapid product cycles and integrated business models is more practical than engaging in protracted patent battles.

​

Another downside is enforceability. A granted patent is only as valuable as your ability and willingness to enforce it. Litigation is costly and time consuming; small companies without deep pockets can find it difficult to enforce rights against larger infringers. This is why many businesses combine patents with other strategies: selective filing for core innovations, robust contracts and supply chain protections, trademarks and design rights for appearance and defensive publication where necessary to prevent others from patenting trivial variations.

So how should you decide? Start with a clear, practical framework.

​

First, assess commercial intent. If your plan is to license, seek external investment or secure exclusive manufacturing agreements, patenting is almost always advisable. Patents convert technical innovation into a negotiable business asset.

​

Second, evaluate market dynamics and competition. If copying is easy, the market is lucrative and competitors are likely to patent similar ideas, a defensive and offensive patent strategy makes sense. Conversely, if your market is niche, speed-focused or built on brand and service rather than unique technology, patents may be less critical.

​

Third, consider technical defensibility and enforceability. Is your invention readily reverse-engineered? If so, patents may offer the best practical protection. If it’s inherently secret and controllable, trade secret protection could be preferable.

​

Fourth, weigh costs and timing. Factor in drafting fees, filing fees, translation and national phase entry costs for international protection and the resources needed to monitor and enforce rights. For many startups, a staged approach works best: perform a professional novelty search, file for priority in core markets and then decide on broader filings once traction or funding is secured.

​

Fifth, think about alternative strategies. Defensive publication can prevent others from patenting a concept, while trademarks, design rights and contracts (NDAs, supplier agreements) strengthen commercial position without necessarily incurring the full cost of patents.

​

In conclusion, the choice to patent or not is not binary but strategic. Patenting provides legal exclusivity and commercial credibility - critical when you need to license, sell or attract investment - but it comes with cost, delay and a requirement to disclose your invention. For many inventors the correct path is a hybrid: protect the core inventive steps that are central to commercial value, use trade secrets for ancillary processes and employ trademarks and design rights to fortify market position.

 

Above all, make this decision informed: obtain a professional novelty search, evaluate your business model and align your IP strategy with your commercial goals. When done well, a patent is not just a legal instrument - it’s a business enabler.

​