IP Business Talk: Building an IP Strategy for Robotics Innovation

• Andrew White, Partner at Mathys & Squire

• Roman Bieda, Attorney at Law and Patent Attorney
• Catherine Bonner, Executive Director, Patents at Murgitroyd and European Patent Attorney

The report also includes contributions from Nina Ferara and Sam Williams in the discussion thread.

The conversation began with the difficulty of identifying an invention within a system that brings together mechanics, sensors, actuators, electronics and control software. A development team may describe an entire robot, while the technical contribution that deserves attention lies in a particular interaction.

The commercial question follows closely. Which part of that interaction creates a capability that matters to the customer? A technically sophisticated feature may deserve a different protection decision from a feature that determines whether the system performs a commercially valuable task.

Catherine Bonner supported the use of a matrix or guidance note to give these decisions focus and direction. Her comment points towards a practical organisational benefit: teams need a shared basis for discussing what to protect. A structured conversation can bring technical significance and business priorities into the same decision, while making the reasons for the chosen approach explicit.

For robotics businesses, the management implication is to establish this exchange early enough to influence protection choices. Engineers, software developers and commercial teams each hold part of the information needed to assess the significance of a development.

Bonner highlighted a feature of robotics that can help discussions about software-related inventions👉 A novel method, process or product that is original and useful.. Technical effects may be easier to identify in sensors and robotic systems than in some other areas of computer-implemented innovation👉 Practical application of new ideas to create value.. She also raised the question of whether using off-the-shelf components introduces novel aspects.

Her later observation added a qualification. As robotics development extends into interoperability, sensor software and data, identifying the relevant technical effect may become more challenging. Together, these comments capture the need to examine the actual contribution within the system, including how familiar components interact.

The discussion also touched on storytelling. Bonner agreed that explaining an invention involves a narrative, both when educating inventors about IP and when discussing patentability with patent offices.

In this context, the useful management lesson is about making the technical relationship understandable. What problem arose, what changed in the system and how did that change affect its operation? Such questions help inventors and advisers develop a shared account of the contribution. They also make it easier to distinguish the development team’s description of its achievement from the aspects that require further examination in the patent process.

One of Bonner’s clearest contributions concerned the portfolio as a whole. She argued that choosing and pruning assets with competitors and company goals in mind should be central to IP strategy. She also acknowledged the practical difficulty of doing this well. Her proposed approach relied on partnership and feedback about which patents and other IP assets are working in practice. That information can support pruning and create room to explore new areas and filings.

This perspective gives portfolio reviews a concrete purpose. The review asks how the existing assets relate to the company’s current direction and where new developments require attention. In robotics, that direction may change as software develops, systems are adapted to different applications or customer priorities become clearer.

Bonner also described robotics as an established field in terms of patents and protection. In her view, a new entrant may find opportunities in improvement inventions, while a larger business entering the sector might consider acquiring a portfolio as a starting point. These observations suggest different portfolio questions for different entrants. A startup needs to understand the significance of its own contribution within an existing technical landscape. A larger entrant considering acquisition needs to examine how the available assets relate to its intended business. Both perspectives require a clear view of what the portfolio is expected to achieve.

Nina Ferara asked for more discussion of patentability in relation to interoperability. Her question drew attention to a feature of robotics that reaches beyond the performance of an individual component: what becomes possible when systems can operate together?

Bonner offered concrete directions for the discussion. She pointed to safety and fail-safe behaviour, data exchange and detection between systems as areas in which a relevant technical effect might be found. The conversation then connected interoperability with specific use cases. Ferara acknowledged that relying on a particular use case could be a more difficult proposition. In a separate comment, she agreed that some use cases are more commercially viable than others.

These contributions bring two assessments together. One concerns the technical contribution associated with the interaction. The other concerns whether the resulting capability matters commercially.

A practical implication is to examine the connection between the two. A company may need to explain how an interaction improves the operation of the system and why a customer values that improvement. The use case can help organise this inquiry, while the technical details determine what contribution is actually being considered for protection.

Ferara’s intervention therefore sharpened a recurring theme of the talk: the commercial relevance of a robotic system depends on what it enables in the hands of its users.

Sam Williams raised a question that brought the pace of AI development directly into the IP discussion. Given the rapid changes in the AI models used in robotics and the comparatively slow patent system, how should advisers help clients obtain the right protection at the right time?

Bonner’s response recognised this timing problem and identified several options for consideration. She noted the potential signalling value of a pending application as evidence of a serious effort to protect IP. She also mentioned trade secrets and accelerated procedures. Her visible comment raised the difficulty of filing too early and the ambition to seek broad protection supported by concrete examples.

The value of this exchange lies in making timing part of the strategic conversation. The company needs to understand how a proposed protection decision relates to the expected development of the technology and the commercial purpose of the asset.

Williams subsequently agreed with Bonner that other forms of IP were becoming more valuable in these areas. His observation widened the discussion of how competitive advantage might be protected when particular implementations change rapidly.

Taken together, the comments suggest that advisers and companies need to revisit their assumptions as the technology develops. A protection choice made for an early implementation should be considered again when the business has better information about the capability it will commercialise.

The interview also addressed how competitor filings and portfolio information can help robotics companies consider gaps in their own protection and possible directions for development. The conversation connected this with a view of freedom to operate👉 Strategic analysis to determine whether a product or service might infringe existing IP rights. as an ongoing process that can inform opportunities as well as risks. Bonner’s emphasis on portfolio feedback provides an organisational connection. Information about competitors becomes more useful when the business can relate it to its own assets, development priorities and customer applications.

The management implication is to create a recurring exchange between those monitoring external developments and those shaping the product. A new filing, a change in the company’s technical approach or a different commercial use case can each provide a reason to revisit earlier assumptions.

This also gives substance to the idea of flexibility. A company can preserve room to respond by recognising which decisions depend on uncertain technical or market developments and reviewing them as better information becomes available.

The session connected a broad robotics IP question with decisions that companies and advisers encounter in practice. Catherine Bonner developed the discussion through her comments on technical effects, portfolio selection, interoperability and timing. Nina Ferara pressed the question of interoperability and the commercial relevance of use cases. Sam Williams highlighted the tension between rapid AI development and the time required for patent protection.

Together, these contributions show the value of examining robotics IP across technical, legal and commercial perspectives. A useful strategy depends on understanding where the company’s contribution lies, how it supports customer value and which protection decisions deserve continuing attention.

The discussion forms part of the Industry Focus on Robotics, Drones and Autonomous Systems, which explores the role of IP in developing and commercialising autonomous technologies.