Aerospace patents play an important role in protecting innovation in the field of aerospace IP and promoting investment, competition and collaboration on many levels.

In addition to protecting inventors and private businesses for the crucial development of new technologies, patents establish a basis for the safe sharing of information often under additional agreements, enhancing collaboration rather than hampering it.

Ultimately protecting IP through registration allows it to be shared with other innovators, while ensuring that the original author, creator or inventor receives a benefit to which they are entitled.

Because of this balance, the aerospace sector continues to see rapid evolution, underpinned by the strategic use of patent pools and licence arrangements, and informed by the advice given by experienced aerospace patent attorneys.

Why IP is so important in aerospace

Aerospace patents serve several purposes. At first glance, these might appear to be mutually exclusive, but in fact they can be blended via commercial contracts and licences, and via access to specialist aerospace patent pools.

• Protect R&D investment by ensuring full commercial benefit of costly inventions and innovations.
• Enable collaboration by sharing/licensing patent rights, especially complementary or overlapping technologies with different rights-holders.
• Take pre-emptive action against patent trolls who might seek to block the use of critical technologies.

Patents therefore can be leveraged beyond a patent’s ability to ringfence a technology or innovation, but also by encouraging investment in new inventions with confidence in the ability to fully commercialise any new discoveries.

Key industry players

A few of the main players and industry trends in aerospace in the 2020s include:

Airbus and Boeing

Two of the largest commercial aircraft manufacturers in the world continue to rely on aerospace patents to protect their innovations.

Airbus launched the A321XLR in 2022, while Boeing’s new 777X features patent-protected inventions including folding wing-tips, which enable it to park in spaces originally designed for smaller aircraft.

Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and BAE Systems

Are also major aerospace manufacturers with a focus on defence applications.

eVTOL

A futuristic field of aerospace research is electric vertical take-off and landing, or eVTOL. This is being led by several companies, including Archer, Lilium and Joby Aviation.

Many types of aerospace patents are being filed in this area, protecting everything from software and control systems, to manufacturing methods, to battery management, to traditional specifications like wing design.

SpaceX

Aerospace and spaceflight technologies have lots of similarities, and SpaceX is a leader in creating some of the most innovative developments since the 1960s.

The company’s Starship is the most publicly visible example of this for potential low-Earth orbit passenger travel, and even for passenger flights to and from the Moon. Already, many features of the craft are protected by patent applications, including the antenna, battery and structural materials used in its manufacture.

Which technologies are most protected?

Aerospace patents can span a broad range of different areas. Like in any manufacturing niche, this can include specific components, entire systems, and the technologies that connect and control those parts.

Some of the niches with the highest level of aerospace patent importance include:

Aerodynamics

Despite being a mature sector, aerospace innovators continue to find new ways to improve wing designs and create even more efficient, low-drag aerodynamics that generate greater lift for aeroplanes during take-off and flight.

Engines

Aeroplanes need powerful engines to generate the thrust needed for take-off, and to maintain level flight at high altitudes, where thinner air reduces the amount of lift produced by the wings.

Fuel economy

Better fuel economy reduces running costs and carbon emissions, allowing airlines to avoid incurring costly environmental tariffs. This is a direct competitive advantage, so any new innovation is likely to be protected via a quick call to the aerospace patent attorney.

Common regulatory hurdles

Protecting aerospace IP can be challenging, but also delivers significant opportunities for rightsholders.

Innovators need to be prepared to work with patent offices around the world, as aerospace is a global industry. This can lead to language difficulties, as well as intricacies arising from differing patent laws in different jurisdictions.

It can take some time for patents to be granted, and those approval dates may be relatively far apart in different parts of the world. However, the rewards for protecting aerospace IP can be considerable.

The obvious benefit of aerospace patent protection is exclusivity rights in a specific market, which can prevent competitors from using a specific technology. Alternatively, the rightsholder may choose to commercialise the invention by licensing it or offering it through an aerospace patent pool.

An important secondary outcome of patent protection for aerospace innovations is the motivating factor on further research and development.

This can include non-infringing variations on the same and similar technology, complementary systems that add further functionality, or even more advanced versions of the same concept, which may offer even better sustainability and eco credentials.

Future horizons

Sustainability is one of the major driving forces behind aerospace industry innovation at the moment, with specific areas like fuel economy high on that agenda.

This is not just about building more efficient engines. It also includes alternative energy sources like biofuels, zero-emission electric propulsion systems, and even research into renewable-energy powered aircraft like solar.

Improvements to wing design and overall aerodynamics are important, as an aircraft with less drag naturally uses less fuel to stay airborne. This reduces running costs, uses less non-renewable jet fuel, and generates fewer carbon emissions.

The future importance of aerospace patents

We live in a best-of-both world, where valuable commercial innovations can be protected by patents, and can be licensed for use by other businesses. This protects the investment made into aerospace R&D, without stifling further progress and collaboration.

It’s right that aerospace IP should be protected by the businesses who put the money into research, and by the innovators who develop the new ideas.

At the same time, those new innovations set new benchmarks for fuel economy and environmental efficiency, driving the industry as a whole to new highs.

Working with a specialist attorney and Aerospace IP firm

It’s not easy to navigate the international aerospace patent process, and it’s important to adopt a strategic approach in order to ensure that your innovations are protected worldwide, to the fullest extent possible in each jurisdiction.

Our aerospace patent attorneys have the expertise and experience needed to protect aerospace IP, and to get the ball rolling in parts of the world where patent approval can take the longest.

From an initial patent search to verify the novelty of your invention, through every step of the aerospace patent application process, we can help you to secure a patent without obstacle.

To find out more, or to speak to a member of our aerospace team, contact us today.

Renewable energy patent filings are an important way for businesses and governments to protect their investment made into developing new technologies and innovations, particularly in solar, wind and other green energy sources.

Clean energy patent filings have increased significantly in recent decades as more countries embrace renewables and in an effort to meet climate change targets.  Innovators are constantly developing more efficient ways to deploy, store and use the variable power output generated by environmental sources.

Large-scale power storage has emerged as a particular area of interest, making the solar wind battery IP landscape one of the most active niches in the renewable energy patents segment.

In this guide, we take a detailed look at some of the most recent developments in renewable energy patents, not only in the UK and Europe, but across all continents in this competitive global market.

Growth of patent filings across renewable energy sector

It is probably not surprising that renewable energy patent numbers are up substantially in recent years, but the rate of growth is impressive regardless.

The European Patent Office (EPO) Patent Index 2024 report states that in the preceding decade, patent filings for electrical machinery, apparatus and energy grew by nearly two thirds (65%).

That makes the segment the fastest-growing of the EPO’s 35 technology-related fields since 2015. Clean energy patent filings are driving this growth, including innovations in smart grid technologies and battery storage.

Legislative changes have also contributed to the increase in filings. In 2021, the European Climate Law came into force; the following year saw the sharpest increase on record, with 15.6% more patents filed in 2022.

Future years are likely to see sustained activity. Under the European Climate Law, all new EU policies must contribute towards achieving climate neutrality in the EU by the mid-21st century.

Renewables like wind and solar have a major contribution to make towards achieving this goal, supported by new innovations in efficiency, energy storage and distribution.

Patents in Solar energy

The solar wind battery IP landscape is broad and complex. Short-term storage of solar energy is crucial to compensate for the variability of supply and demand, and clean energy patent filings include inventions to store energy more efficiently for longer.

Related technologies like fuel cells also offer efficient long-term energy generation and storage using hydrogen, which can be generated using solar, wind or hydropower, improving the sustainability of fuel cells. 

According to WIPO’s World Intellectual Property Indicators 2024: Highlights report, 54.4% of all energy-related patent applications published in 2020-22 pertained to solar energy.

This eclipses other renewable energy patent applications during the same period:

• Solar: 54.4%
• Wind: 19.4%
• Fuel Cells: 13.2%
• Hydropower: 11.4%
• Geothermal: 1.5%

In all, there were 44,700 published patent applications for energy technologies in 2022, up from 29,400 in 2007. Three of the years during that time saw double-digit growth: 17.7% in 2009, 12.6% in 2010, and 15.1% in 2021.

WIPO said: “Patent applications related to solar and wind energy exhibited an upward trend between 2007 and 2022. For example, filings for solar and wind energy in 2022 were 2.1 times and 3.2 times higher respectively.”

Innovations across battery and storage

Figures from the EPO’s Patent Index 2024 show even faster growth in filings related directly to battery technologies. After a “breakthrough year” in 2022, these have continued to surge in number, with battery technology patent filings increasing by:

• 42.2% in 2021-22
• 20.3% in 2022-23
• 24.0% in 2023-24

The top 15 companies worldwide by number of patent applications included three European businesses, but no US-headquartered corporations. All of the top ten applicants in 2024 were Asian, contributing 55% of the world’s patent applications for battery technologies.

Of the world’s five biggest patent offices, the Republic of Korea saw the most filings, accounting for nearly 30% of the total. China followed in second place with Europe close behind, on 18.4% and 17.3% respectively – the first year China has edged ahead of Europe.

Which countries are leading the renewable energy charge?

The global ‘solar wind battery’ IP landscape is complicated, often businesses file patents in multiple jurisdictions for the same innovation.

WIPO reported that in 2021, there were 2.14 million unique ‘patent families’ filed worldwide across all sectors. More than two thirds of these originated from China, followed by 8.6% from Japan, 7.3% from the US and 7.2% from the Republic of Korea.

In terms of energy sector innovation, the EPO reports that “Asian applicants now dominate, particularly in battery technologies, where inventions accounted for more than two fifths of all patent applications in the field in 2024”.

Within Europe, several countries have emerged as ‘growth champions’ in battery storage innovation, with a 21.3% increase in filings in Switzerland and a 14.9% rise in the UK, against a Europe-wide increase of 8.9%.

This sets battery technologies as the fastest growth segment in the EPO’s top ten technology fields, supported by pioneering research carried out by UK and European universities.

Emerging technology and what’s coming next

As we look to the future, processing an ever-growing number of renewable energy patent filings presents a challenge in its own right.

WIPO reported that in 2023, the US patent office had the biggest backlog of applications pending, at about 1.2 million across all sectors. Japan followed in second place with 794,036, while the EPO was in third with 670,386.

Germany’s backlog stood at 370,311, slightly ahead of the Republic of Korea’s 366,478. WIPO was unable to obtain data for China’s number of pending patent applications in 2023, but collated figures from 110 patent offices worldwide.

“Patent offices must assess whether the claims presented in an application meet the standards of novelty, non-obviousness and industrial applicability defined in national law,” WIPO stated. “Processing patents therefore consumes time and resources.”

With many International patent applications resulting in the submission of the ‘patent family’ to multiple national and regional offices, in order to obtain protection in different jurisdictions, this tends to increase the figures for the total number of pending applications.

In 2023, this total increased by 3.7% to 4.6 million worldwide. The fastest growth was in the UK, with pending applications across all sectors up by 9.2% in 2022-23.

As British and European businesses continue to innovate in high-growth fields like clean energy and battery storage, the protection offered by international patents in energy technology will continue to be a crucial way to safeguard financial investments and capitalise on new developments.

In the already complicated landscape of automotive patent strategy EVs (electric vehicles), have introduced a new layer of complexity.

From fewer than 9,000 patent family publications in the year 2000, statistics from WIPO show that the land transport sector – including cars, trucks, trains, buses and related technologies – generated 99,500 new patent families in 2023.

Over half of these (50,572) related to ‘sustainable propulsion’ including battery EVs, solid-state batteries, electric propulsion systems, motors, gearings and so on. This is a growth rate of 11% since the start of the century, which has accelerated in recent years.

These patent trends are an indicator of the rapid rate of development in the field of clean transport, and in many cases of the offensive and defensive approaches being taken to electric vehicle intellectual property management by motor manufacturers worldwide.

In this article, we will look at those tactics in more detail, along with some of the main ways to monetise EV technology in the present global climate.

Defensive vs offensive patent tactics

First of all, let’s make sure that we understand the difference between defensive and offensive tactics in electric vehicle IP management.

These are two of the key drivers of automotive patent trends. They can influence whether a patented technology ever makes it to market, and in which geographic jurisdictions.

As motor manufacturers continue to make significant investments into developing new EV technologies, a mix of defensive and offensive patent tactics can be crucial to protect the financial outlay and the potential for future monetisation of emerging EV tech.

What are defensive patent tactics?

Defensive patenting generally means filing patents early to discourage other manufacturers from attempting to use a specific technology. You can think of defensive patents as a ‘shield’ to protect your investment.

By filing a patent application as early as possible, you prevent similar technologies from being used commercially. You can also begin to establish a portfolio of patents and applications that can be used as prior art to defend against the grant of later filed patents and potential litigation by competitors, if necessary.

A substantial defensive patent portfolio can be a valuable bargaining chip. If a competitor sees significant potential in one of your patented technologies, they may enquire about licensing the technology detailed in the patent.  Licensing arrangements often include an upfront fee and continuing royalty arrangement.

What are offensive patent tactics?

Offensive patents are the ‘sword’ that accompanies the shield. They are a way to restrict the activities of your rivals, grow your market share and to maximise revenue generation.

Offensive tactics include monitoring the market and litigating against anyone you believe has infringed your patent rights.

While this can create commercial problems for competitor businesses, it is also a common technique to raise revenue by requiring rivals to pay a licensing fee to continue their work in a field where you hold patents.

Defensive vs offensive patent strategies – which is best?

The above defensive and offensive patent strategies exist alongside one another; it is not a case of choosing one approach or the other.

Rather, holding an extensive portfolio of patents enables you to choose from the available tactics as appropriate in any given circumstance.

This is especially true in terms of the automotive patent strategy EVs require, due to the large amount of new research taking place by many different types of businesses all over the world.

Patent collaborations

Patent collaborations are a way to ensure that the industry as a whole can continue to develop using patented technologies, without the need to negotiate on a use-by-use basis with the rights holder.

Famous examples of this include the home entertainment formats DVD and Blu-ray, which were developed and popularised by groups of consumer electronics brands that worked together and pooled their patent rights.

A similar approach is a hallmark of automotive patent licensing trends and especially of electric vehicle IP management, where innovations like efficient battery storage and standardised charging interfaces allow for industry-wide evolution.

The most visible of these is the Combined Charging System, or CCS. This emerged from the work of the global Charging Interface Initiative (CharIN) and means that – with just a handful of common connector types – EVs can be plugged into compatible charge points worldwide.

Types of EV patent collaboration

As a specialist subset of a broader automotive patent strategy, EVs contain IP from multiple rights holders, making use of several different methods to grant usage rights to each motor manufacturer:

Patent Licensing

Agreeing usage rights via a licence, which may be time-limited or otherwise restricted in scope. Licences can be granted to a single company (exclusive) or to multiple companies at the same time (non-exclusive).

Cross-Licensing Agreements

Cross-licensing agreements are an exchange of rights to accelerate innovation and reduce the risk of litigation. This might be in a field where different types of patents overlap, for example the hardware used in an EV’s charging system, and the software that controls the charging process.

Patent Pools

One of the most flexible ways to encourage innovation via collaboration, patent pools are an agreement between multiple organisations to facilitate fast and reliable access to protected IP. This can reduce costs and time delays and ensure that specific technologies can be used across the automotive industry.

Technology Partnerships

Technology partnerships develop new tech together and co-own any resultant patent rights. This is often seen relatively early in the history of an emerging market or sector, where the main players recognise that rapid progress is the best way to minimise risk and maximise returns.

The monetisation of EV technology

One way to enable progress to be made is to monetise existing developments. Research can be expensive and those who develop new technologies are motivated to recoup that investment by commercialising their innovations.

By implementing a structured approach to automotive patent strategy EVs offer substantial opportunity for monetisation, including cutting-edge tech like:

• Lithium-ion batteries
• Solid-state batteries
• Battery recycling
• Ultra-fast charging systems
• Thermal management

Problem-solving is a frequent motivating feature of automotive patent licensing trends; for example, new ways to maximise the vehicle’s range from a single charge, or ways to prevent lithium-ion batteries from overheating.

Types of EV monetisation patents

Electric vehicle IP management often combines several types of patents or patent claims as a way to monetise each category of innovation:

• Product Patents: Protecting innovative products and devices such as new, more efficient batteries with greater total capacity.
• Process Patents: Creating exclusivity of new innovative processes e.g. in manufacturing, production or materials recycling.
• Use Patents: Closely related to process patents and govern the way protected IP is used e.g. in battery manufacture, autonomous vehicle systems etc.

Importance of International patent filings

The EV market has global reach, so comprehensive electric vehicle IP management must make good use of international patent filings to protect valuable innovations in all major markets.

Because of this, EV patents are typically filed in multiple jurisdictions, e.g. Europe, China, Japan, India and the USA where there are major markets and manufacturing sites.

Where the same technology is patented in multiple locations, this is known as a ‘patent family’. By referring to patent families – not individual patents, which can inflate overall figures – it is possible to track automotive patent trends more accurately.

Navigating thickets, litigation, blockers and challenges

When it comes to the types of common obstacles seen in automotive patent strategy, EVs are no exception, and it’s important to be aware that these blocks, challenges and thickets exist.

Some of the main areas in which you could benefit from professional EV patent advice include:

International Enforcement

Ensuring protected IP is not used elsewhere in the world. Enforcement is a crucial element in a patent strategy, to exercise your rights as the owner of potentially very valuable IP, which may have been very costly to develop.

Patent Thickets

A patent thicket emerges when competing patents around a particular technology discourage innovation and encourage litigation. While it’s reasonable to protect your IP, thickets can create a large degree of risk surrounding the use of important technologies and processes and ultimately do not benefit the consumer.

Speed of Innovation

Technologies can quickly become obsolete in a rapidly evolving sector. Some of the most visible examples of this are EV charging standards (e.g. Type 1 and Type 2 chargers, compared with CCS charging points).

It’s important to protect the value of your patents, and this should include strategic licensing so that your technology remains relevant for as long as possible.

 

If you’d like to find out more about automotive strategy, or looking for a professional team to assist with your own IP protection, get in touch with Bailey Walsh using our simple form here, or call our HQ on +44 (0)113 208 9962

The government has recently launched a consultation into the implementation of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), with the goal of addressing longstanding problems that affect patent owners, licensees, and other parties operating in the technical fields. Many in the industry have welcomed this long-awaited review, but what are SEPs, and why is the government reviewing them?

What are British Standards and how do Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) relate?

Standards, often referred to as technical standards, are established requirements for repeatable tasks, technologies, services or concepts to make sure different products can interact and work together. Standards are set by standard development organisations (SDOs), such as the British Standards Institution (BSI) in the UK, which sets the technical specifications for a wide range of products and services. Manufacturers and service providers are required to make their goods and services standard-compliant. 

It may be the case that an emerging technology becomes a new industry standard, as these technologies can offer universal improvements rendering the previous standard obsolete, for example the emergence of 5G technology. This new emerging technology, or parts of it, may fall under patent protection, and as such the required implementation of the new standard by a non-licensee risks infringement of the patent. This is where Standard Essential Patents come in.

What are SEPs?

A patent that protects technology which is implementing a standard is known as a Standard Essential Patent (SEP). The rules and regulations governing SEPs are complex, spanning patent framework, competition law, standardisation and contract law. 

The UKIPO encourages SEP holders to license their patents to the market and generate royalties, provided the terms are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory, also known FRAND terms. It is worth noting that there are provisions in patent law to allow the UKIPO to grant compulsory licenses where there has been abuse of monopoly rights. 

Why is the government reviewing the SEP landscape?

The government has identified a number of challenges in the “SEP ecosystem”, including Transparency (pricing and essentiality) and Litigation. It is the government’s objectives to help implementers navigate and better understand the SEP ecosystem; improve the transparency of the ecosystem; and identify ways to increase efficiency in dispute resolution. 

Regarding transparency, the government is proposing a ‘Rate Determination Track’ which would be a simpler and more efficient approach to legal proceedings to determine a correct license rate. The government is further considering additional search functions on the UKIPO website that would enable a user to search for patents that relate to technical standards, in a similar manner to the present searchability for Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) for medical products and pharmaceuticals. 

Regarding measures to improve SEP licensing and dispute resolution, the government is assessing the need for a specialist SEP Pre-Action Protocol; assessing market provision of essentiality checking services; and the development of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) services specific to SEPs. 

The government consultation runs until 7 October 2025, and the full consultation document can be read here. 

 

SEPs are becoming increasingly relevant as further interoperable products and technologies emerge, and technical standards are introduced. The number of patents declared as essential worldwide is growing exponentially. As the number of SEPs grows, it is a necessary step for the UKIPO to evaluate the workability and fairness of the SEP ecosystem in the UK. This consultation is the first step in that process.

The role of patent pools is an important one. They help ensure that valuable innovation does not remain constrained by patent protection, but can be used to advance shared understanding, as well as mutual commercial benefits for the rights holders or ‘licensors’.

However, not all patent pools are built for financial gain. The Medicines Patent Pool, for example, was created by a number of non-profit organisations and measures its success in dollars saved, not dollars earned.

What is a patent pool?

A patent pool is an agreement between two or more patent holders to licence the technology protected by their patents to one another and/or third parties.  In other words a patent pool is a way for companies and third parties to work together to develop new products and innovations that make use of patented intellectual property that may belong to another owner.

The WIPO definition

The most accurate definition of a patent pool is provided by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in a March 2014 paper ‘Patent Pools and Antitrust – A Comparative Analysis’.

In the paper, prepared by WIPO’s secretariat, the following definition of patent pools is given:

“Patent pools can be defined as an agreement between two or more patent owners to license one or more of their patents to one another or to third parties.”

The patent pool also determines the share of any royalties paid, which may be from one member of the pool to another, or from a third party who pays both/all licensees for access to the licence pool.

When are patent pools used?

The WIPO document notes that patent pools are often seen in relation to complex technologies, where existing patented innovations may be required to develop new and efficient solutions.

In these instances, the technologies involved are typically mature. There may be a significant number of existing patents held, and advancing innovations further forward may require the use of patented ideas.

However, there is a second case when patent pools may also be used. WIPO explains: “Pools also frequently represent the basis for industry standards that supply firms with the necessary technologies to develop compatible products and services.”

In this case, when access to second-party and third-party patents is a matter of interoperability, the relevant technology or market may still be in a state of development.

Examples of popular pools

Some of the most popular patent pools are a necessary way to enable the licensing of technologies used in consumer electronics and communications, for example:

DVD6C Licensing Group

Created by a group of eight companies including Hitachi, JVC Kenwood, Mitsubishi Electric, Panasonic, Samsung, Sharp, Toshiba and Warner Bros, the DVD6C Licensing Group was a one-stop shop for companies wishing to license patents relating to DVD production.

It was discontinued on January 1st 2020 as high-definition formats such as Blu-ray have overtaken DVD, whose standard resolution was just 480p.

One-Blue

DVD6C was eventually succeeded by One-Blue, a one-stop licensing programme for Blu-ray products which launched in 2011. This time, six major electronics and entertainment brands were involved: CyberLink, Hitachi, Panasonic, Philips, Samsung and Sony.

From an initial remit relating to Blu-ray Discs (BD), the scheme was expanded in 2017 to also include Ultra HD Blu-ray (UHD) products.

Via-LA

The Via Licensing Alliance, or Via-LA, was founded in April 2023 after Via Licensing Corp acquired its forerunner, MPEG-LA. This in turn was created back in 1996 to license patent pools that used video compression standards like MPEG-2 and MPEG-4.

All of these examples give a clear idea of why a patented technology developed by one company, such as DVD, Blu-ray or MPEG, might be licensed to another company involved in the production of software or hardware relating to that patent.

But what is the role of patent pools in other sectors, such as healthcare? What is a patent pool used for in medicine?

The Medicines Patent Pool

The Medicines Patent Pool is deliberately designed to save money, as a way to make important treatments more available to developing countries.

Critical intellectual property is licensed voluntarily to the MPP by its rights-holders, which in turn allows it to be used to develop new treatments for diseases like HIV, tuberculosis and hepatitis C (and, since 2020, COVID-19).

WIPO reports that in the first decade of the 21st century, the cost of first-generation HIV medicines fell from over $10,000 per patient per year to less than $70, a drop of over 99%.

This was thanks largely to markets like India, where medicines were not patented. But as developing countries introduce patents on medicines in order to comply with international trade rules, this starts to prevent generic drug manufacturers from producing low-cost versions.

Patent pools like the MPP help to counteract this chilling effect, by providing low-cost access to essential intellectual property via a licensing model that’s easy to navigate, removing some of the roadblocks to continued affordable medicine for emerging economies.

The Medicines Patent Pool in numbers

Between January 2012 and the end of 2023, according to its own published figures, the Medicines Patent Pool:

• Supplied over 43.5 billion doses of treatment
• Provided access to MPP-licensed products in 148 countries
• Reduced patient years of treatment by over 118 million
• Saved $1.9 billion on medicine licences
• Averted 38,000 deaths

By the end of 2030, the MPP forecasts that it will save $3.9 billion in licensing costs and prevent 170,000 fatalities.

Benefits of patent pools

The numbers above speak for themselves, but the role of patent pools goes beyond saving lives and money; they are also an important driver of economic performance.

Some of the benefits of patent pools listed by the UK government include:

• Efficient one-stop access to a pool of complementary licences
• Reduced negotiation and admin costs for licensors and licensees
• Easier financial planning due to fixed upfront royalties
• Frequent access to discounts on royalties
• Less risk of ‘patent thickets’ where access to multiple licences becomes very complicated

There may be some technical obstacles to navigate, for example where a non-disclosure agreement conflicts with a patent pool’s requirement for innovations to be made public, but these are likely to arise only on a case-by-case basis.

Overall, the benefits of patent pools – whether profit-making or charitable – make them a compelling licensing structure in any industry where access to critical intellectual property is needed to enable further advances to be made.

In an industry where new technologies and developments in scientific practices are constantly evolving, securing a chemical patent strategy has never been more vital. Without strong chemistry patent strategies to back up your unique composition, you risk losing market share and jeopardising one of the strongest business tools in your repertoire. 

Chemistry and chemical patents are granted on the same basis as patents in other fields, namely novelty, industrial application, and inventiveness. They can be used to support: 

• Chemical compounds. 
• Compositions within the chemical compounds. 
• Articles created from the chemical compound or that contain the chemical compound. 
• Unique processes related to the preparation or creation of the chemical compound. 
• Specific methods of using the chemical compound. 

Defining a Strong Chemical Patent Strategy

Securing a patent incurs months if not years of work; therefore, it’s important you invest your time and money wisely before submitting an application. 

Here’s three steps companies can take to create a strong chemical patent strategy and make the most of their innovation in a competitive industry: 

1. Conduct Thorough Prior Art Research 

Prior art refers to all the existing publicly available knowledge that is relevant to your idea. Discovering what kind of information is publicly available will help strengthen your patent claims by providing information on the truly novel aspects of your idea. By conducting thorough prior art research, you can highlight the current patent landscape, avoid potential infringement risks, and improve the likelihood of your patent approval. 

2. Define the Scope and the Problem Clearly 

The strongest chemical patents are those with a scope that is neither too broad or narrow. Ideally, your patent should solve an existing problem in a valuable and clearly defined way. By clearly defining the scope and problem, you can help patent examiners identify the reasons why your patent is unique in comparison to existing chemical compounds in the landscape. 

3. Develop a Strong Chemical Patent Strategy 

Lastly, chemical patents require a strong strategy to safeguard your invention from being easily copied by competitors. Aside from preventing potential infringement, strong chemical patent strategies can enable licensing and partnership opportunities that may not be available otherwise. 

How Can a Strong Strategy Overcome Common Hurdles in Chemical Development?

Strong chemical patent strategies are those that aim to achieve specific business goals within a competitive market. By leveraging their intellectual property with a strong set of , chemical patent owners can: 

• Protect core chemical compounds in a saturated industry. 
• Earn royalties via licensing opportunities and strategic patent partnerships. 
• Gain market share by patenting key elements and improvements. 
• Avoid potential infringement by researching prior art applications and existing patents.  
• Prioritise their key inventions by patenting those that align with long-term business goals.  

Filing Chemistry Patent Strategies for Maximum Formula Protection

Understanding the benefits of chemical formula patent strategies is all well and good. But how can you ensure that your chemical patent strategy protects your invention to the fullest extent? 

Here are four aspects of filing strategies that you can’t miss. 

Begin by Filing a Provisional or Priority Patent

Things move fast in the chemical industry; therefore, starting with a provisional patent may be in your best interest. Provisional patents start the 12 month priority window before full applications are due, allowing you time to gather more data or test new variations before your formal application. This can prevent potential competitors from getting a step ahead. 

Consider Multiple Layers of Patent Protection

One of the best ways to create a strong patent is by increasing the layers of protection associated with your patent. For example, you can file for a chemical patent that protects a class of compounds or both the compound of your innovation as well as the method used to create it. By diversifying the scope of your patent using different claim types, you make it harder for potential competitors to alter the chemical composition to find loopholes. 

Think About Filing an International Patent Application

Another strategy that helps create more robust patent protection is filing for international patent protection. The Patent Cooperation Treaty, also known as PCT, helps inventors file a single patent application across 150 countries. This approach can help save time and money by consolidating multiple filings into a single system for a period of time. 

Work Alongside a Chemical Patent Attorney

Finding a patent attorney specialised in chemistry and chemical compounds will make all the difference when it comes to securing a strong patent. Not only will a patent attorney help you reduce the margin for error by helping you define the invention, they’ll also employ chemical composition patent strategies to improve your chances of successfully obtaining a commercially useful granted patent.

 

Conclusion 

All in all, forward looking chemical patent strategies are a true game-changer for industry leaders. Research and development in the scientific world moves at such a fast pace that protecting your chemical compounds and innovations is essential for maintaining a competitive edge. 

The right kind of chemical composition patent strategies help safeguard intellectual property from potential infringement while simultaneously opening doors for licensing, partnerships, and long-term commercial success.

The election of US President Donald Trump has already provided many high-profile developments in his short time in office. Among the wide-ranging measures that have been introduced are policy changes that may impact the performance and operation of the US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), and subsequently may affect the prosecution of US patent and trade mark applications by both domestic and international applicants. 

In this article we will discuss the two most relevant actions: firstly, the order for federal workers, including USPTO administrators and examiners, to return to work at the office; and secondly, a freeze on the recruitment of USPTO staff. 

What is the USPTO?

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is the federal agency responsible for granting patents and registering trademarks in the United States. The USPTO operates within the department of commerce, examining patent applications to explore whether inventions meet the requirements for IP protection.  The agency also provides numerous resources for those within the intellectual property space, such as inventors and patent attorneys, providing guidance alongside a public accessible database of existing patents and trademarks.

Trump Policy: Ending Remote Work at the USPTO

Regarding the request for existing staff to return to work in the office, while the headlines suggest that this is relevant across all Federal agencies, including the USPTO, there is the possibility of agency heads making “exemptions as they deem necessary”.  However, the emphasis is still on the agency heads to terminate remote working where possible. In a memorandum issued by the White House’s Office of Personnel Management, it was stated that the USPTO no longer permits regular and recurring remote working and therefore employees should work full-time at their respective work sites or offices. This does not supersede existing collective bargaining agreements but there is an obligation on the agency heads that these collective bargaining agreements should be brought into compliance with the new requirement to work in the office where possible.  

This could have a particular impact at the USPTO because at present, over 90% of employees have a remote working agreement, meaning that around 9,000 examiners work remotely full-time within the US.  Furthermore, as a result of this, the available space at the USPTO offices has been significantly reduced over previous years, accelerated by the Covid-19 pandemic, such that if the employees do return to office-based work there will be insufficient space for these employees. Therefore, there is a concern that the USPTO will be unable to retain all employees if they are all forced to return to office-based work under the action.   

USPTO Recruitment Freeze Following Trump Election

The USPTO are aiming to reduce the prosecution period for an application to obtain patent protection by positively recruiting new staff, however this recruitment looks to be halted as a result of a freeze ordered by President Trump on the filling of any Federal civilian position that is vacant as of 20 January 2025. This slowdown on patent prosecution may impact the US economy, as the USPTO itself estimated in 2019 that industries that intensely use intellectual property, including the filing of US patents, made up 41% of domestic economic activity and directly supported around 33% of all US employment. It remains to be seen if the reduced rate of patent prosecution, and therefore the rate at which patents grant in the US, will affect the productivity of these industries. 

Trump Administration’s New USPTO Leadership and Policy Direction

In a further indication of President Trump’s desire for change, he has appointed a new deputy director, without confirmation from the US Senate.  The new Deputy Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the USPTO, Coke Morgan Stewart, will likely lead the USPTO for up to 300 days and has full authority to implement the new instructions regarding ordering the return to working in the office and the freeze of recruitment. This could be a signal that the new Trump administration plans to directly affect intellectual property policy directly and with immediate effect.   

In summary therefore, initially, it is likely that there may be some further delay in the granting of patent applications by the USPTO while the impact of requiring existing examiners to be office-based is implemented.  It is likely that only after this exercise has been performed, will the retention of existing staff be assessed and then a decision will have to be made with regard to continuing recruitment, affecting the rate of patent, trade mark and design prosecution in the interim.

It can typically take between 3-5 years to obtain granted patent protection in the UK and/or Europe from when a patent application is first filed. This relatively long period of time is often useful to the patent applicant. For example, it can allow prosecution costs to be spread out over a longer period of time than otherwise might be the case.

The lengthy prosecution time does not generally adversely affect an applicant’s ability to commercialise their invention as marketing of the invention, investment, patent licenses and patent assignments can still take place when a patent application is pending before grant. In addition, financial remuneration for infringement of a granted patent by a third party can be backdated to the date of publication of the patent application.

However, in some cases, the length of prosecution time for a patent application can hinder commercialisation of an invention and can delay patent infringement actions being brought against third party infringers, particularly in cases where patent prosecution may extend beyond the normal 3-5 year time period. In some technical fields, it is not uncommon to have patent applications pending for as long as 10+ years.

We are therefore frequently asked the question as to what can be done to accelerate prosecution of a patent application to reduce the time taken to achieve grant of a patent. We set out below the available routes in the UK and Europe for allowing accelerated prosecution of patent applications.

Five steps to Accelerated Prosecution in the UK

1. Patent applications relating to green technology can be the subject of accelerated prosecution at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). Applicants are required to set out a brief statement of the environmental benefits of their invention on making the request for accelerated prosecution.
2. Requesting combined search and examination. In normal cases, examination is requested within 6 months from publication of a UK patent application, which is typically 18 months from the earliest filing date of the patent application. Combined search and examination can be requested on filing and this typically results in a combined search and examination report being issued within 6-9 months of the filing date of the application.
3. Requesting accelerated search and/or examination and providing a reason for the request, such as for example, a threat of imminent infringement of the invention by a third party, an investment opportunity requiring a granted patent or a potential licensee requiring a granted patent.
4. Requesting early publication of a patent application. Patent applications are normally published 18 months from the earliest filing date of the patent application. Even if accelerated examination of the application has been requested, applications cannot be granted until at least 3 months after publication of the application so that the examiner can carry out a “top-up search”. A request for early publication typically brings the publication forward to within 6 weeks of when the request was made.
5. Applicants who have achieved grant of a patent for their invention at another national patent office in the world can request accelerated prosecution using the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) at the UKIPO. This allows the UKIPO to re-use the prosecution work undertaken by the national patent office for the same invention using the same patent claims that have been accepted for grant by the national patent office.

Six steps to Accelerated Prosecution in Europe

1. Applicants who have achieved grant in one of 17 selected national patent offices around the world can enjoy faster prosecution at the European Patent Office (EPO) using the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH). This allows the EPO to re-use the prosecution work undertaken by one of the national patent offices for the same invention using the same patent claims that have been accepted for grant by the national patent office, thereby allowing the patent examination process to be hastened at the EPO. There is no additional EPO fee for requesting PPH. The 17 selected national patent offices are: Japan, Korea, China, USA, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile Colombia, Israel, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, The Philippines, Singapore and Saudi Arabia.
2. Request PACE (Programme for Accelerated Prosecution of European Patent Applications). There is no additional EPO fee for requesting PACE and there is no requirement to amend the claims of the patent application or have a prior patent granted for the same invention in another country. PACE can only be requested once prior to the search report for a patent application being issued, and once prior to the start of examination of a patent application. It is necessary for applicants to respond in a timely manner to EPO Office Actions in order for a patent application to remain on the PACE scheme once it has been requested.
3. Requesting early processing of a PCT patent application entering Europe before the required 31 month time limit. This allows the EPO to initiate their search and examination process before the usual time period.
4. Waiving certain time limits provided during prosecution, such as for example, R. 161 & 162, R. 70(2), R. 71(3) EPC Communications. There is often time periods of 3-6 months provided for responding to certain EPC Communications and waiving these time limits reduces the prosecution time of the patent application.
5. If an infringement action is pending before a national patent office at a contracting state of the EPC, accelerated opposition or appeals relating to the European patent application can be requested.
6. Undertake certain prosecution steps earlier than is necessary.

If you have any queries relating to the above information or if you would like to file a patent application under accelerated conditions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Safeguarding your intellectual property is a vital step in creating any great invention; however, ensuring that your patent application is offers the appropriate scope of protection can be difficult. Patent problems can be more difficult to detect than you may think. A single misstep in your patent application process can lead to costly delays or even rejection.  

In this guide, we will cover five common patent issues and how you can avoid them to ensure a smoother patent application journey.

What are the most common patent problems? 

So, what can go wrong with patents? There are plenty of problems inventors must be aware of. From meeting strict deadlines to submitting vague claims, a small error in your patent application could prevent you from securing the rights to your invention and jeopardise your ability to protect your intellectual property in competitive markets.

1. Lack of Novelty or Inventiveness 

One of the most common issues someone may experience during the application process is a lack of inventiveness or novelty in the invention’s claims. Obvious variations of existing concepts, simple design modifications , or combinations of known technologies in a non-inventive configuration will not suffice when attempting to prove inventiveness. 

To ensure a successful application, your patent must describe an invention that is new and demonstrates an inventive step that truly offers a distinct technical advantage and is not obvious to a person skilled in the art. Therefore, your application must emphasise all the unique technical features of your invention, focus on practical improvements, or demonstrate unexpected results. 

2. An unclear, insufficient, or inaccurate description of the concept

One common cause of patent rejection is due to unclear or inaccurate descriptions of the inventive concept. Discrepancies in your invention’s description could lead to unclear claims and, in worst-case scenarios, a rejected patent application. 

Optimal patent descriptions leave no room for ambiguity. Instead, they provide detailed and structured explanations of the invention’s components, functions, and technical advantages. Rather than saturating your description with technical jargon, try to keep the language as precise and simple as possible, including clear definitions and diagrams that help clarify complex concepts. 

3. Failure to meet deadlines 

The simplest reason for a patent application being refused is also easiest to avoid: missing deadlines set by the patent office. You’ll need to adhere to specific and strict application deadlines in any jurisdiction your application is filed in, so make sure to do your research ahead of time.

Although you may be able to request extensions for your patent application, it’s best to create a timeline of important deadlines to proactively manage the process from start to finish. Make note of target dates such as the priority date, publication dates, cut-off for examination responses, and official fee payments. We strongly recommend using a fully qualified patent attorney who will inform you of upcoming deadlines, and any available extensions. 

4. Objections raised by the Examiner

Another difficult challenge in the patent application process is the opposition that innovators may face during prosecution. This commonly occurs during the examination phase, as officials may identify deficiencies with the claims of your application. An examiner may cite overly broad or vague claims as an insufficient disclosure of the invention or raise objections to the exclusions to patentability of the invention as reasons that the application may be invalid. 

A professional advisor will be able to assist in responding to objections raised during examination. For example,  the claims may be narrowed to overcome novelty or inventive step objections. We recommend that a thorough prior art search is conducted prior to filing a patent application to identify relevant pieces of prior art. Collecting as much evidence of your invention’s novelty, inventiveness, and industrial applicability and including this in the application can help in overcoming potential objections raised during examination.  This is important as information cannot be added to a patent application at a later date.

5. Failure to pay patent renewal fees

Once you’ve secured your patent, you’ll need to ensure your intellectual property remains protected for years to come. Failure to maintain your patent by paying the relevant renewal fees at the required deadlines will mean your patent will lapse.  In the worst case your invention could irretrievably lapse and then be free for others to use. 

In the UK, patent renewal fees are payable from the fourth anniversary of your patent filing, and must be renewed on an annual basis. Fees for patent renewal increase progressively, so ensure to budget for long-term expenses and set up automatic reminders to avoid any late fees. Alternatively, you could outsource your patent renewal management to a qualified third party, such as a patent attorney, to reduce the risk of an unintentional lapse of protection.

If you or your business require help with your patent application, contact us through our simple online form and an experienced patent attorney will be in touch with you.