For small and medium-sized enterprises in pharma and biotech, intellectual property is rarely a side issue. IP often forms the foundation of the entire commercial case.
Drug development requires significant capital, long timelines and close coordination between R&D, regulatory strategy and patent work. A weak decision early in the IP process can reduce future revenue, give competitors room to manoeuvre, or undermine the rights intended to protect the investment.
A strong IP strategy is therefore not simply a matter of filing a patent application. It must answer a more commercial question: what happens if the product succeeds?
-
Read more about: Life science and Pharma
- Read also: Your IP experts in Norway
IP strategy means goal plus plan
A useful IP strategy should contain two elements: a clear goal and a practical plan. The goal defines what the company needs to protect, in which markets, against which types of competitors and for how long. The plan sets out how to get there through patent filings, regulatory considerations, documentation, Freedom to Operate work and decision points during development.
This is particularly important in pharma and biotech because much of the commercial value of patent protection is tied to the period after market approval. If applications are filed too early, or if development takes longer than expected, key patent protection may expire before the company has had enough time to recover its investment.
The strategy must therefore support the business case, not merely create a portfolio of rights.
Not all competitors are the same
Many IP strategies focus mainly on generic competition. That is too narrow. Pharma and biotech companies should consider several types of competing products: generic products, variant products, biosimilars and parallel “me too” products developed by larger companies using their own clinical data.
Each type of competition requires different protection. A compound patent covering the active pharmaceutical ingredient may be central against generic products. Formulation patents, medical use patents and regulatory exclusivities may provide additional protection against variants and biosimilars. But if a larger competitor develops its own compound, protein or cell therapy against the same target or mechanism, only broad concept patents may offer meaningful protection.
A portfolio may look strong if it is tested only against copy products. It may still be weak if it does not protect the commercial concept behind the product.
Patent protection and regulatory exclusivity must work together
Patent protection and regulatory exclusivities are different tools, but in pharma and biotech they must be assessed together. The revenue forecast for many smaller drug-development companies depends heavily on market share and the length of time the company can remain effectively alone in the market. The whitepaper describes this as a combination of IP and regulatory exclusivities.
For founders, management teams and investors, the relevant question is therefore not only whether the company has patents. The better question is how long the company can realistically protect its market position, in which jurisdictions, against which competitors and with what level of risk.
Secondary patents require discipline
Many drug development strategies rely on layered patent protection. A first patent may cover a group of compounds or an active pharmaceutical ingredient. Later, secondary patents may cover formulations, salts, buffers, dosing, administration routes or medical use. If valid and enforceable, these rights may extend the period without generic competition.
However, the first patent application should not necessarily list every conceivable salt, buffer, excipient, indication, dosing regimen or administration route. Speculative disclosure can backfire. When those features are later properly developed, it may become harder to obtain strong secondary patents.
The better approach is to build patent claims on real data, credible generalisation and realistic fallback positions. It is not enough for an application to pass examination. If the product becomes commercially important, competitors may spend significant resources looking for weaknesses.
IP strategy is also an organisational discipline
A strong IP strategy depends on more than patent drafting. It also requires an innovation culture that prevents valuable information from being disclosed too early or without adequate confidentiality measures.
The whitepaper refers to Lovaza, developed by Pronova, where the US patent was invalidated after enforcement. One issue was that samples had been sent out without confidentiality agreements before the patent application was filed.
For management, this illustrates an important point: IP risk is not limited to the patent department. R&D, regulatory teams, business development, management and commercial teams all make decisions that may affect future rights. Publications, investor presentations, collaboration discussions, material transfers and partner dialogues should therefore be handled in line with the IP strategy.
Patents are the beginning, not the strategy
In pharma and biotech, the patent portfolio is often one of the company’s most important value drivers. But patents alone are not enough. The value lies in how those rights support development, regulatory strategy, financing, partnerships and future market exclusivity.
The companies that are best positioned treat IP strategy as an integrated part of the business strategy. The objective is not merely to obtain granted patents. The objective is to protect investment, preserve commercial freedom and secure the longest possible time alone in the market.
