Can a fusion-reactor design be tested from home? Can your Japanese collaborator understand your mass-spectrometer widget via a shared drawing on a Zoom call? Is an inventor allowed back into their lab to pick up their memory stick? Does your broadband connection work when you need it to? Given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, these are just some of the questions now being asked as we encounter a “new normal” in our working lives.

We are in a situation of huge uncertainty. And uncertainty is never great for any business, particularly when it comes to innovation – especially now as most staff are working at home, or at least trying to. Every well-run hi-tech business should ensure that innovation is part of a wider business model, which means that a patent-filing strategy – with its associated cost and time-management – also needs to fit in with that model. If there’s a disconnect here, then there is an increased risk of wasting money, time and effort with little impact.

I work with physicists and engineers from a wide range of entities, including start-ups, spin-outs, universities, small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) and global corporates. Hard data about what is happening to hi-tech firms is hard to come by. But as a snapshot, there seem to be “pockets” in play, where some are carrying on as if nothing untoward is happening. Some are even increasing innovative activity, while others less so. Physics-based companies arguably lag behind their chemical and biotech counterparts when it comes to protecting and exploiting intellectual property, but the protection of new ideas remains crucial now, just as it did before the COVID-19 pandemic.

From small to large

Before the pandemic, companies had systems and procedures in place to drive, capture and protect innovation. For universities, that might be to help justify tax-payer investment in research and eventually -generate income from spin-outs. For SMEs, a good patent strategy might go hand-in-hand with protecting market share and cementing collaborations. With corporates, the same may be true, but might also form part of a wider “numbers game” where thickets of patent filings could have different tactical use.

It seems that some start-ups and spin-outs are now in a particular bind. Intellectual property might be their main, or perhaps only, asset. If they are lucky to have long-term funding, then day-to-day operations are likely to be okay, for now, and it could even be time to push for more protection. But what if funding was already tight or upcoming funding looks shaky?

This is tricky. Pressing pause can only last so long with patent-office deadlines still looming, even if temporarily extended. It might well be that the protection of certain innovations needs to be ramped down, or jurisdictional coverage restricted. Or perhaps patent rights will have to be abandoned, which would hit the value or strength of the business.

For universities, the risks and rewards in the short term are perhaps not so prevalent. But similar problems do exist. Universities will face financial challenges over the next few years as government funding gets squeezed and international students fall away, which is why many see the protection of innovation as being key to revenue generation. Only time will tell if the short-term pain will justify the possible long-term gain.

For many SMEs, meanwhile, it is common to protect core innovations and also invest in more speculative technology that might be interesting in the future. As a result, such firms might have more options in terms of what to do next. Some will want to push innovation and protection to get ahead of the competition, while others will prefer to pull back and protect their core technology. Both approaches can currently be seen.

For the big corporates, it is quite common for them to follow an “amplified SME” strategy. They tend to carry out more speculative patent filings to protect against future changes in the direction of their sector. In this case, they will likely ride out the storm and more easily cut spending on patents if necessary or cut research investment in more peripheral areas of interest. They may even throw resources behind a particular area of emerging interest. For example, we are seeing an enormous -impetus in the medical-devices sector, in terms of physics-related technology, and also in pharmaceuticals.

The new normal

So what will happen next? Removing more of the uncertainties will bring about increased stability. That might be in terms of more concrete timelines being put in place for a new normal – for example, getting used to working from home or a home–lab combination. Maybe in future researchers will do lab work and then go home and study the data. Perhaps this will now happen, regardless of lockdown measures? Stability is never a bad thing for investors and long-term bets will still be in play.

I still think there will be a shift to an even more electronic and connected world, and there’s clearly going to be a vast amount of innovation to go along with that. Will physics companies be involved in this and benefit from it? Yes. After all, new innovations will still be sought in the telecoms, telemedicine and consumer-electronics industries, as well others too.

We are in a state of huge flux and the world has more to worry about than just physics-based innovation. But if we want a brighter future we cannot simply press pause forever on innovation, protection or exploitation and forget about them entirely. Innovating and protecting your innovation is rarely, if ever, a short-term strategy. It’s long term, critical and needs to fit in with a business model. While the COVID-19 pandemic might change some of the inputs and outputs to the strategy, these messages remain true.