Lawyer for patent law: patent strategy and Unitary Patent
For technology-driven companies – protecting inventions strategically, using the Unitary Patent, conducting patent disputes. For innovators this means: protecting inventions, using the Unitary Patent and conducting patent disputes.
When patent law is commercially decisive for companies
ITMR Rechtsanwälte advises companies in patent law on the right order of patent application, confidentiality, product communication, exploitation and conflict prevention.
Anyone wanting to protect innovations strategically does not automatically need the broadest portfolio of property rights. Patent law regularly becomes critical when development, financing, cooperation, market entry and imitation risk converge. Besides the patentability of a technical solution, what is decisive is whether patent protection really pays off commercially.
We advise companies, entrepreneurs, founders, start-ups, tech providers, agencies, platform operators, investors, decision-makers, executives, specialists, rights holders and other professional market participants. Depending on the technical subject matter, advice is closely coordinated with patent attorneys and focused on exploitation, disputes and business feasibility.
Responsible for content: Jean Paul P. Bohne, Fachanwalt für IT-Recht (certified specialist lawyer for IT law), Fachanwalt für Urheber- und Medienrecht (certified specialist lawyer for copyright and media law), AI Officer (DEKRA), reviewed on 23 October 2026 (German version)
Quick start: what is your matter about?
Choosing between patent and secrecy
Assess imitability, disclosure risk and market window together.
Patent infringement, attack or defence
Classify injunctive relief, information, defence and product adaptation.
Licensing and technology transfer
Regulate rights to improvements, exit, liability and documentation.
Software and artificial intelligence
Clarify technical teaching, freedom to operate and contractual context.
Your contact: Jean Paul P. Bohne, LL.M., MM
Partner, certified specialist lawyer for IT law and for copyright and media law (Fachanwalt für IT-Recht, Fachanwalt für Urheber- und Medienrecht).
What happens after your enquiry?
After your enquiry, we get back to you within 24 hours on working days. The first contact is free of charge. We inform you explicitly before any costs arise.
- A short description is enough. Describe the technical solution, the state of development and what has already been disclosed to third parties. Helpful are development and cooperation agreements, planned dates for pitch, demo or trade fair and, in a conflict, the other side's letter.
- Receipt and initial sorting. We assess the enquiry on the basis of the project described, the documents and the apparent goal. Deadlines and dates should be clearly recognisable.
- Suitable starting point and cost range. We clarify whether an initial consultation, a service package or a specific mandate is the next step. As soon as the scope of the review is clear, we tell you the cost range – before work begins.
What matters now
Is a patent application the strongest line, or would trade secret protection be commercially more robust?
Was too much already disclosed before a pitch, demo, tender or investor round?
Do older third-party rights block market entry despite your own application or patent?
Do licensing, development agreement and technical protection strategy mesh cleanly?
Important transitions: licensing, IT contract and software contract and start-up advice.
Typical cases from our patent law practice
The following constellations are abstracted and simplified. Which solution holds up always depends on technology, state of disclosure, contractual situation, target markets and evidence.
DefenceCompetitor invokes a patent
- Starting point
- A competitor disrupts sales and invokes a property right.
- Key difficulty
- Patent infringement, injunctive relief, information and damages risks must be clarified.
- Our work
- We secure evidence and examine defence, product adaptation and settlement options.
- Work result
- A robust line of defence with commercially balanced options.
Simplified example.
TransactionDue diligence before an investment
- Starting point
- Investors want reliable statements on property rights and rights to developments.
- Key difficulty
- Third-party material, open source components and contributions within the team are not properly documented.
- Our work
- We organise chain of title, confidentiality and exploitability and close gaps in the contracts.
- Work result
- A documented property rights position for due diligence and exploitation.
Simplified example.
Typical constellation from practice
Demo before the protection decision
- Typically, it starts like this:
- A start-up wants to show a new control solution at a trade fair and to investors.
- The hurdle:
- Novelty can also be lost through one's own disclosure. Application, confidentiality and communication are not yet coordinated.
- How we proceed:
- We organise the order of disclosure, confidentiality and filing logic and coordinate with patent attorneys.
- What you have in hand:
- A clear order for application, confidentiality and product communication.
Illustrative scenario; it shows how we work and does not describe any specific case.
What you will have at the end
| Service | Concrete result | Next step |
|---|---|---|
| Classifying the route to protection | Decision between patent, patent application, secrecy or a combined protection structure | Describe technical solution and objective |
| Coordinating disclosure | Coordinated disclosure, confidentiality and filing logic before pitch, demo or financing | Name dates and documents |
| Freedom to operate | Assessment of obstructive third-party patents and possible design-around strategies | Describe product and target markets |
| Exploitation and contracts | Structured development, cooperation and exploitation models | Send existing contracts |
| Patent infringement and defence | Balanced options on injunctive relief, information, product adaptation and settlement | Submit the other side's letter |
What patent law protects and where the limits lie
Patent law protects technical inventions. Mere ideas, abstract business concepts or pure software without a viable technical teaching are not protected.
In everyday business, what counts besides protectability is whether the invention is documented, described and commercially classified in such a way that it can later be robustly exploited or defended. Decisive in practice are regularly novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability and the date of disclosure. Added to this is the question of how closely technical development, confidentiality and patent application are coordinated.
Three points that are often misunderstood in practice
- A patent is above all an exclusive right. It is not an automatic licence for your own market use.
- Novelty can also be lost through your own disclosure, for example before a trade fair, demo, pitch or tender.
- For software-related solutions, a reference to “code” or “artificial intelligence” is not enough. What is decisive is a technical teaching.
What is typically close to patents
Product and process innovations, control and regulation solutions, hardware-related software, sensor technology, networked systems, green tech technologies and other technical implementations where imitation is realistic and exclusivity pays off commercially.
What regularly does not hold up
Mere business ideas, pure market or platform concepts, marketing claims, aesthetic design without technical teaching or pure computer programs as such. For visible design, design law is often more relevant; for names and signs, trade mark law.
What must be clarified commercially at an early stage
Order of disclosure, chain of title, documentation of the invention, priority, development agreements and confidentiality. Added to this is the question of whether the protection strategy must be embedded in broader industrial property protection or in a confidentiality architecture.
Patent or secrecy?
Not every innovation automatically belongs in a patent application. The route to protection is only commercially right when imitability, disclosure risk, market window, investor logic and later enforceability are considered together.
Patent
Particularly strong when the technical solution is externally recognisable, is meant to pay off commercially for longer, can scale internationally and third parties would find it relatively easy to copy without protection. Then patent protection can become a real market instrument.
Secrecy
Often commercially stronger when parameters, manufacturing know-how, data sets, test methods or process steps form the core and are hardly recognisable from the outside. Then trade secret protection and a robust confidentiality structure are regularly more important than early disclosure.
Supplementary axes of protection
Technical protection strategy rarely stands alone. For names and signs, trade mark law often applies; for visible design, design law; for market attacks and sales situations, often competition law. At ITMR, the overarching perspective is bundled on the page industrial property protection.
Practical note before a pitch, demo, trade fair or investor meeting
In brief
Anyone who communicates, documents or openly shares technical documents before the protection decision can unnecessarily weaken their own position. Especially in founding, green tech and cooperation situations, patent application, confidentiality, product communication and financing should therefore be considered together.
Points of connection often also lie with start-up advice and Green IP.
When you need us
Most patent law mandates begin with time pressure and rarely with an abstract definition. Typical are a product launch, financing round, obstructive third-party patents, unclear chains of title or an already escalating competitive situation.
Before disclosure and market entry
A product is to be presented, tested, sold or made investor-ready. Now it is decided whether to file first, to speak only under confidentiality or to deliberately keep it secret.
Before due diligence, investment or transaction
Investors, acquirers or cooperation partners want reliable statements on property rights, rights to developments, third-party material, open source components, confidentiality and exploitability. Then a loose patent idea is regularly not enough.
In the case of patent infringement, attack or defence
A competitor disrupts sales, invokes a property right or copies core technical elements. Then it is about patent infringement, injunctive relief, information, damages, defence, preservation of evidence, product adaptation and settlement solutions. Added to this is how property rights are interlinked with litigation & litigation PR.
In licensing and technology transfer
The commercial value of technical property rights often only arises through exploitation. Then, besides patent questions, licensing, IT contract and software contract and clear rules on improvements, exit, liability and documentation also matter.
Existing ITMR deep dives relating to patents
Unitary Patent, classic European patent and proceedings before the Unified Patent Court
Since 2023, the European patent landscape has become strategically more demanding. The choice between a national patent, a classic European patent and a European patent with unitary effect significantly influences costs, reach, exposure to attack and procedural pressure.
For companies, this means more than simply more Europe. It creates a different risk and leverage effect: central enforcement can be attractive, but so can central vulnerability to attack. For international protection strategies, the route via the Patentzusammenarbeitsvertrag, i.e. the Patent Cooperation Treaty, may also become relevant. Which route pays off commercially depends on target markets, likelihood of attack, cost structure and exploitation goals.
These questions should be answered before choosing the route
- Which markets really pay off commercially, and where should enforcement later take place?
- How high is the probability of an early attack or a central dispute?
- How important are flexibility, opt-out considerations and cost control?
- Is the property right being built rather for defence, for negotiations or for active enforcement?
Software, artificial intelligence and data-related products
In digitally shaped mandates in particular, the real difficulty rarely lies in the buzzword “software” or “AI”. It lies in cleanly separating technical teaching, data use, contract architecture, open source context and product regulation.
For software-related inventions, what is decisive is whether a computer-implemented solution solves a concrete technical problem with technical means. For AI-related developments, there is the additional requirement that inventorship, training data, documentation and governance remain clean. Anyone who hastily derives patentability automatically from technical innovation here often builds on too rough an assumption.
In brief
Freedom to operate, i.e. the examination of freedom to market despite one's own development or own property rights, must be separated from the question of one's own patent application. Especially for software-heavy products, platforms, interfaces, embedded systems and data-driven solutions, this examination often decides on the launch earlier than one's own application.
IT and contractual context
For platforms, software-as-a-service models, embedded software and development cooperations, patent law and IT law often run in parallel. On the contractual side, IT contract and software contract then often decides on rights to improvements, documentation, acceptance and exploitation.
Data and data protection
Technical products with sensors, telemetry, user or training data often touch data law and data protection law at the same time. A patent does not solve these questions. On the contrary, it can make them more visible in product design.
Open source and security context
For software-heavy innovations, open source law and cybersecurity often also come into play. Especially for security-critical or highly networked products, the protection strategy should not be developed in isolation from security, update and supply chain questions.
What ITMR specifically handles in patent law
ITMR is particularly strong in patent law where technical property rights must be considered together with IT, contracts, data, confidentiality, communication and conflict strategy.
- Classification of whether a patent, patent application, secrecy or a combined protection structure is the commercially stronger line
- Coordination of disclosure, confidentiality and filing logic before pitch, demo, tender, market entry or financing
- Support for patent-related projects in close coordination with patent attorneys and technical preparation of the facts
- Assessment of freedom to operate, i.e. freedom to market despite one's own development or own property rights, obstructive third-party patents, design-around strategies and dispute-related escalation
- Integration with licensing, IT law, data law, competition law and industrial property protection
- Structuring of development, cooperation and exploitation models with regard to chain of title, improvement clauses and enforcement
- Support in patent infringement, defence against attacks, injunction claims, information, damages risks, product adaptation and settlement options
ITMR deliberately focuses on the business perspective: patent application, protection strategy, exploitation, launch, investor readiness, attack and defence situations. For purely formal detailed questions of a specialised filing routine, close cooperation with patent attorneys is the right way, depending on the subject matter.
Mistakes that become expensive later
The most expensive patent mistakes rarely arise only in the judgment. They are usually laid much earlier: in unclear communication, sloppy contracts, wrong disclosure or in the assumption that a buzzword replaces a robust protection strategy.
- An invention is described too openly in sales documents, pitches, repositories or at trade fairs before the protection decision.
- The patent application is confused with real freedom to operate, although older third-party rights can block use.
- Patent issues, confidentiality, development agreement and product communication run side by side instead of together.
- A software or AI context is hastily treated as patentable, although the technical teaching is described too thinly.
- A filing status is advertised without separately checking the actual state of proceedings, the message conveyed and how the public understands it.
- Within the team it is unclear who made which contribution and how rights to improvements or joint developments are distributed.
Practical further reading at ITMR: Advertising with “Patent Pending”, AI is not an inventor and Sales ban on counterfeits of a patent-related product.
Key terms in patent law
- Technical teaching
- Solution of a concrete technical problem with technical means. Mere ideas and business concepts are not sufficient.
- Exclusive right
- Core of the patent. It is not an automatic licence for your own market use.
- Novelty
- Requirement for patent protection. It can also be lost through your own disclosure.
- Freedom to Operate
- Examination of freedom to market despite one's own development or own property rights.
- Unitary Patent (Einheitspatent)
- European patent with unitary effect. It allows central enforcement and at the same time increases central vulnerability to attack.
- Patent Cooperation Treaty
- Patentzusammenarbeitsvertrag (PCT). Route for international protection strategies.
- Patent Pending
- Advertising reference to a patent application. Admissibility depends on the statement, status and how the public understands it.
These terms explain the language used on this page. What matters is always the specific individual case.
Provisions and reliable sources
The following foundations and procedural routes are cited on this page.
| Provision | Content | Practical significance |
|---|---|---|
| National patent | Technical inventions with novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability | Protection for individual markets. |
| Classic European patent | European route to protection | Reach across several markets. |
| European patent with unitary effect | Unitary Patent and proceedings before the Unified Patent Court since 2023 | Central enforcement and central vulnerability to attack, opt-out considerations. |
| Patent Cooperation Treaty | Patentzusammenarbeitsvertrag (PCT) | Route for international protection strategies. |
Frequently asked questions on patent law
The answers provide a robust initial framework. For a legally sound assessment in the individual case, technology, state of disclosure, contractual situation, target markets and evidence remain decisive.
What specifically does patent law protect for a company?
Technical inventions are protected, i.e. solutions with a technical teaching. This can be a product, a process, control logic or a software-related, technically shaped implementation. Mere business ideas, marketing promises or pure programs without viable technical content are not protected. It is also important that a patent above all confers an exclusive right. Whether you may freely use your own solution is an additional question. ITMR Rechtsanwälte assesses both.
Does a patent application already mean full protection?
No. The application is often the decisive first step because it secures priority and the direction of protection. But it replaces neither a granted patent nor the examination of whether older third-party rights block market entry. Anyone who assumes too early that everything is now secured regularly underestimates the commercial and procedural situation. ITMR Rechtsanwälte reviews the situation with you.
May one advertise with “Patent Pending”?
It is not prohibited across the board, but it is not a licence either. Decisive are the actual filing status, the specific statement, the product reference and the target audience. Admissibility under competition law depends heavily on the statement, status and how the public understands it. Anyone using it in advertising should check status and message separately. For more at ITMR: Advertising with “Patent Pending”. ITMR Rechtsanwälte reviews advertising statements.
Does having your own patent automatically mean freedom to operate?
No. Your own patent does not automatically mean that a product may be freely placed on the market. Freedom to operate, i.e. the examination of freedom to market despite one's own development or own property rights, is a separate question. Older third-party property rights, contracts, regulatory requirements or product-related restrictions can limit use regardless of your own application. ITMR Rechtsanwälte assesses freedom to operate.
Can software and artificial intelligence be patentable?
Yes, but not simply because software or artificial intelligence is used. It regularly only becomes viable when a technical teaching solves a concrete technical problem with technical means. Here in particular, much depends on the description of the invention, the technical embedding and clean documentation of the development path. ITMR Rechtsanwälte advises on this.
When is secrecy commercially stronger than a patent?
Secrecy can be the better solution when the commercial core lies in parameters, data sets, manufacturing know-how or internal processes that are hardly recognisable from the outside. This applies especially with rapid iterations or when disclosure does more harm than good. Then a robust combination of contract architecture, access control and documented secret protection is often more effective than an early application. ITMR Rechtsanwälte weighs up both routes.
What do the Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court change in practice?
The European protection and dispute architecture becomes more centralised. This can bring advantages when several markets are to be protected or attacked at the same time. But it also increases the risk that a dispute quickly gains greater reach. Whether a national patent, a classic European patent or a European patent with unitary effect is the better route depends on markets, costs, likelihood of dispute and enforcement goals. ITMR Rechtsanwälte supports you in choosing the route.
Getting started with patent law at ITMR
When patent law must be interlinked with IT, contracts, data, communication or conflict strategy, early structuring is usually more economical than later repair. Patent law at ITMR: patent strategy, disputes, Unitary Patent.
Responsible lawyers at ITMR
Partner | Fachanwalt für IT-Recht (certified specialist lawyer for IT law) | Fachanwalt für Urheber- und Medienrecht (certified specialist lawyer for copyright and media law) Jean Paul P. Bohne, LL.M., MM is the obvious choice at ITMR when patent law comes together with IT law, licensing, platform or AI context, route-to-protection decisions, exploitation and contentious escalation logic.
Rechtsanwältin (lawyer) | Industrial property protection | Trade mark law | IT law Emma-Marie Kürsch is the obvious choice when patent-relevant topics are linked with industrial property protection, trade mark, design, competition, launch or contract questions.
Legal status: 23 October 2026. This overview provides initial orientation and does not replace a review of the specific case.
Responsible for content: Jean Paul P. Bohne, Fachanwalt für IT-Recht (certified specialist lawyer for IT law), AI Officer (DEKRA), reviewed on 23 October 2026 (German version)
Responsible lawyer for patent law at ITMR
Jean Paul P. Bohne, LL.M., MM
Rechtsanwalt (attorney) | Partner | Business mediator
- Fachanwalt für Urheber- und Medienrecht (certified specialist lawyer for copyright and media law)
- Fachanwalt für IT-Recht (certified specialist lawyer for IT law)
- AI Officer [DEKRA]
- Certified Information Privacy Professional/Europe [CIPP/E]
- Cert. Information Privacy Manager [CIPM]
- External data protection officer [TÜV]
- Data protection officer [TÜV]
- Data protection auditor [TÜV]
- IT compliance manager [TÜV]
T: +49 211 737547-70
E: bohne@itmr-legal.de
Emma-Marie Kürsch
Rechtsanwältin (attorney) | employed
T: +49 211 737547-70
E: kuersch@itmr-legal.de