Developing a product and then applying for a patent—does this approach really make sense? Actually, it’s a significant mistake!

What’s Wrong with This Approach?

The error lies in the timing. By the time you’ve completed product development, it’s often too late. Applying for a patent should be done as early as possible. Waiting until after product development may mean missing a better opportunity and possibly falling behind competitors.

Addressing Common Concerns

Some might argue, “How can I apply for a patent when the product isn’t finished or the technical path isn’t clear?” If you know someone with this concern, share this article with them.

Timing is crucial in patent applications. Being a step behind means losing patent rights to someone else. Many companies misunderstand the relationship between product development and initiating a patent application, often resulting in delayed filings.

When is the Right Time to Apply for a Patent?

Before diving into the ideal timing, let’s address whether you can apply for a patent without a finalized technical route.

Part 1: What Kind of Technical Solutions Does a Patent Protect?

A patent does not only protect the optimal or ideal solution.

“This technology still has some bugs and is under testing.”

“The experimental data isn’t good enough; parameters need adjusting.”

A patent protects any solution that solves a technical problem and achieves a technical effect, not just the best or ideal one. If a solution addresses Technical Problem 1 but introduces Technical Problem 2, can it still be patented? Absolutely.

Patents protect innovations relative to existing technology. If existing technology has Technical Problem 1, any solution addressing it can be patented, regardless of whether it introduces new problems. Hence, you don’t need to wait for the optimal solution to apply for a patent.

Waiting for perfection can be futile. Often, the solutions implemented in products are not the optimal ones due to various factors like cost, production difficulty, and market positioning. Delaying patent applications in pursuit of perfection can be detrimental.

A patent doesn’t need to be perfect; it just needs to solve a technical problem.

Protecting More Than Just the Implemented Solution

A patent should not only cover the solution implemented in the product. If protection is limited to the chosen technical route, competitors can easily circumvent it, possibly using solutions you discarded during development.

Even solutions with shortcomings, if patented, can hinder competitors’ product development and patent applications. Competitors’ improvements on these solutions may still be considered existing technology.

Thus, don’t wait for a fixed technical route to apply for a patent. Focus on timing rather than the specific technical route. Don’t discard any developed technical solutions lightly; protect your hard-earned innovations. Even if a solution isn’t optimal from a technical or product perspective, it can still have value from a patent perspective.

Technical Solutions Do Not Need to Be Implemented

Some might argue that at least the technical solution should be implemented or tested. Generally, this isn’t necessary. Actual implementation is not a prerequisite for patent applications. As long as a technical means can solve a problem and achieve an effect, it can be patented, even if it hasn’t been implemented yet.

Therefore, even if you currently have only a technical concept without actual implementation, you should act early to secure the earliest possible filing date.

Comprehensive Innovation Mining for Patent Protection

Since patent applications do not require prior implementation, the protected technical solutions need not be confined to “existing” technologies.

Patent protection should not be limited to current technical ideas or implemented methods but should also consider potential competitor workarounds and future technical routes, thereby engaging in comprehensive innovation mining.

By anticipating future developments, you can stay ahead; by considering potential workarounds, you can strengthen your defenses.

Of course, performing innovation mining effectively is highly complex. It cannot rely solely on R&D personnel but requires close collaboration with patent agents. We will provide a detailed explanation of innovation mining in a future article, so stay tuned.

At this point, some might question: “With so many possible points to protect, how many patents do we need to file, and how much will it cost?”

In reality, it is not necessary to file a large number of patents, but the patents filed must be comprehensive and well-founded. With this foundation, you can dynamically file additional patents as needed.

Explaining how to do this in detail would require a lengthy discussion, involving flexible use of the patent system. We will address this in a subsequent article.

Part 2: The Best Time to Apply for a Patent

Most companies wait until a product is about to launch to consider patent applications, or at least until after testing. This is too late.

Since patents don’t need to protect the optimal solution or have implementation as a prerequisite, why not act early?

From a product perspective, patent preparations should begin with the initial product concept.

For example, Apple filed multiple patents related to touch control well before releasing its first all-touchscreen smartphone in 2007, with some patents dating back to 1998.

Similarly, Google applied for patents on voice recognition technology in 2007, at an early stage of development.

High-quality patents require ample preparation time. Rushing patent applications results in lower quality.

If you tell an agency, “The product will launch a month after it’s made,” or “The product will launch right after testing,” their responsible response will be, “Why didn’t you start earlier?”

Moreover, patent application is only a part of the overall patent strategy, and it is actually the latter part of the process.

Patent strategy is divided into two phases: the initial phase and the latter phase. The initial phase involves planning how to patent the various technical aspects of the entire product, determining the types of patents to apply for, planning domestic and international patent strategies, and scheduling the timing of patent applications. The latter phase involves executing the actual patent applications and subsequent maintenance based on the plans established in the initial phase.

If the initial phase is not well-prepared, the subsequent patent applications will be at a disadvantage.

Ideally, patent strategy should be synchronized with the R&D project. When the R&D project starts, the patent strategy should commence simultaneously.

Part 3: Exceptions Requiring Data Support

Of course, not all technical solutions can be patented based solely on a concept. There are exceptions: some technical solutions require data support.

To be more precise, certain technical means of solving a problem and achieving a technical effect need to be validated by experimental data. For such technical means, it may be challenging to file a high-quality patent based merely on the concept.

The most typical example is in the field of biochemical materials. The preparation of some chemical compounds and the composition ratios of chemical products often require experimental data to demonstrate that they solve a technical problem.

However, this does not mean that you have to wait until after experiments to initiate the patent application process. By employing strategies that prioritize timing, you can ensure both an early filing date and the quality of the patent.

Conclusion

After reading this, do you still think it’s correct to wait until product development is complete to apply for a patent? If you have doubts about this “significant mistake,” feel free to leave a message for further discussion.