Robotics startups can live or die by their intellectual property (IP). Strong IP can protect innovations, deter competitors, and be the difference between attracting investment or being left behind. Yet, in a field that blends hardware, software, AI, and data, many young companies stumble on the basics — whether by overlooking trade secrets, disclosing technology too soon, or failing to plan an international patent strategy.
Greenberg Taurig will share hard earned insights into the IP landscape for robotics during RoboBusiness (Oct. 15-16 in Santa Clara, Calif.). From protecting AI-driven software to navigating patent risks with industry giants, the session will explore how startups can safeguard their ideas, avoid common pitfalls, and build portfolios that boost valuation and open doors to partnerships or acquisitions.
Here are some tips about building your IP strategy in today’s evolving robotics landscape.
What types of intellectual property protection are most relevant to robotics companies?
Patents remain the cornerstone for robotics companies because they protect core technologies, incremental improvements, methods of use, and sometimes even manufacturing processes. A well-built patent fence can deter competitors and give startups leverage in negotiations with partners or acquirers. Trade secrets are equally important in robotics, particularly for algorithms, control systems, and manufacturing know-how that may not be patentable. Trademarks protect brand identity in a market where reputation and trust are critical, while copyrights can safeguard software and related materials. A holistic IP strategy that integrates all of these protections is often what distinguishes robotics companies that scale successfully.
What’s your advice for protecting software-based innovations in robotics, especially around AI and autonomy?
For AI-driven robotics, the protection strategy should combine patents, trade secrets and copyrights. Software based inventions are patentable in the U.S. and some foreign jurisdictions, and may include unique technical solutions to specific problems. Companies should ensure robust internal protocols to prevent inadvertent public disclosure, as even a presentation or a conversation can jeopardize rights outside the United States. Design patents can be used to protect user interfaces and copyrights may add a layer of protection for code.
What are some common IP mistakes robotics startups make?
A frequent mistake is filing an initial patent but failing to protect incremental product improvements as the technology evolves. Another is disclosing technology publicly before filing, which can eliminate rights particularly outside the U.S. Startups also sometimes neglect to secure ownership of IP created with third-party contractors, leaving gaps that can derail financing or acquisition. Finally, many undervalue trade secret protection, even though robotics companies often rely on proprietary algorithms and processes that should be tightly controlled.
How can a startup avoid infringing on patents held by large, established companies?
Freedom-to-operate analyses and patent landscape reviews are critical early steps. By identifying “white space” around competitor portfolios, startups can focus their innovations on areas that avoid infringement while still staking out broad claims for themselves. This not only reduces risk but can also highlight opportunities to block competitors. Collaborating with experienced IP counsel to monitor the competitive landscape ensures that as products evolve, so does the company’s defensive position.
How should robotics companies think about international patent strategy, particularly in regions like China?
International protection should target where the company plans to manufacture, sell, or face competitors. The U.S. is typically the anchor market, but robotics companies should also consider Europe, China, and Japan. In China, IP enforcement has historically been challenging, but it remains a vital market for both manufacturing and sales. Strategic filings in China can provide leverage in negotiations and protect against copycat products. Given costs, companies must prioritize core patents and regions rather than filing broadly without return on investment.
How does a strong patent portfolio impact fundraising, valuation, or acquisition for a robotics company?
Patents are often the primary way investors and acquirers assign value to robotics technologies before revenues materialize. A strong IP portfolio signals innovation, creates barriers to entry, and de-risks the business model. In M&A, buyers look for portfolios that cover not just the core technology but also improvements and adjacent applications, as this shortens time to market and strengthens negotiating positions. In practice, companies with robust portfolios consistently attract higher valuations and more favorable deal terms.
What should roboticists know about licensing strategies?
Licensing can unlock new revenue streams and expand market reach without requiring heavy infrastructure investment. Outbound licensing of patented technologies or software can bring in royalties, while inbound licensing can allow startups to access complementary technologies without reinventing them. A well-designed licensing strategy can also be a bridge to collaboration or acquisition, making it a powerful business tool beyond simple IP monetization.
How are IP laws adapting to generative AI and machine learning in robotics? Are there grey areas around who owns the output or decision logic?
IP law is still catching up with generative AI. Questions remain about who owns machine-generated outputs and whether certain models or training methods qualify for certain IP protections. For example, U.S. law requires a human inventor for patents or a human author for copyright. Gray areas persist in ownership of data-derived insights and decision logic, so many robotics companies rely on trade secret protection for these aspects. Clear contractual agreements with partners, vendors and customers are essential to avoid disputes.
With more robots learning from deployment (real-world data), how do you protect value without overstepping privacy or data usage laws?
Robotics companies must walk a fine line between protecting proprietary datasets and complying with privacy and data regulations. Strategies include anonymizing or aggregating data, ensuring consent where required, and storing sensitive information securely. The data itself may be protected as a trade secret if access is controlled, while the use of data to train algorithms can be the subject of patents. Robust compliance with laws such as GDPR and state-level privacy regimes in the U.S. also enhances credibility with investors and partners.
Do you have any war stories or case studies where IP broke a robotics business?
One recurring theme is startups that disclosed innovations publicly before filing patents. In those cases, the companies lost rights in Europe and Asia, and acquirers walked away due to lack of enforceable protection. Another scenario involves startups that outsourced development without securing IP assignment from contractors. In at least one case, this left the startup unable to prove ownership of its core technology, killing an acquisition deal. These cautionary tales highlight that even groundbreaking robotics technology can fail commercially if IP is not properly secured.
About the Author
Roman Fayerberg is a registered patent attorney with broad experience helping clients to strategically protect and leverage their innovations globally. Roman works with clients to develop and manage worldwide patent portfolios and counsels clients in regard to freedom to operate, patent landscape, and patent infringement and validity matters. He also conducts and defends patent due diligence investigations in connection with venture capital investments, mergers and acquisitions, and licensing opportunities.
Roman has represented clients ranging from start-ups to global companies in a variety of technical areas, including medical devices, robotics, diagnostic and imaging systems, microfluidic devices, and biotechnology. He understands the legal goals of each of his clients and develops and executes patent strategies that meet such goals. Roman is a frequent speaker and author on topics related to patent law.
He has been recognized in IAM magazine’s IAM Patent 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Professionals. Roman previously served as a co-chair of the Boston Bar Association’s Intellectual Property Section, and is currently a co-chair of the Medical Device, Diagnostics & Digital Health Committee of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Counsel (MassBio). Roman’s patent practice builds on his experience as a research and development engineer at C.R. Bard (now Becton Dickinson), where he spent 5 years developing biomaterials-based products for hemostasis and soft tissue reconstruction.
His engineering career began at Boston Scientific Corporation, where he designed and developed new products for less invasive neurosurgeries, such as catheters, stents and stent delivery systems. Roman also has experience in the selection and protection of trademarks, as well as litigating patent, trademark and trade dress infringement and unfair competition actions in federal courts.
Tell Us What You Think!