Patents are meant to protect new ideas. If you invent something useful, you can ask for a patent so that no one else can use, make, or sell it without your permission. But not everything can be patented. Some things, like natural laws or mathematical formulas, are off-limits.
What Is a Patent, Really?
Understanding Patents Through a Business Lens
A patent is more than just a certificate with your name on it. It’s a business tool—a strategic shield that can protect the edge you’ve worked so hard to develop.
While many see it only as a legal document, smart companies use patents as leverage. They’re not just about rights; they’re about reach, reputation, and return.
When a business seeks a patent, it’s usually aiming to gain some level of control over a unique solution.
This control can limit competition, increase market value, or create licensing opportunities.
Investors often look at a company’s patent portfolio to judge whether its innovation is defensible.
That’s why patents are not just for inventors. They’re for founders, product teams, growth leads, and boardrooms.
But the important thing to know is that a patent is only as strong as the clarity and strategy behind it.
Filing something that’s too vague, too broad, or too detached from application won’t give you any meaningful advantage.
It will just cost you money and time. And worse—it could signal to others that your innovation isn’t serious.
The Power of Scope: How to Think Bigger with a Patent
Too many businesses make the mistake of patenting a small version of their big idea.
Instead of protecting the full scope of what their product or process can do, they only file for a narrow slice of it. This is often because they’re trying to move fast or keep costs low.
But if your patent doesn’t cover future applications of your invention—especially the ones you plan to build into your roadmap—competitors can work around it easily. And they will.
One way to avoid this is to spend time thinking through where your innovation leads. Ask yourself: Is this invention a platform, or just a product?
Could this process be used in other industries? Could this method be adapted as a tool or service for others?
If the answer is yes, your patent strategy should reflect that. Don’t file just for version 1. Think about version 2, 3, and 5.
This doesn’t mean overreaching. It means filing claims that align with your long-term innovation path.
Your Patent Is an Asset, Not a Trophy
There’s a common mindset in early-stage teams where patents are treated like milestones or vanity metrics.
The thinking goes: “If we have one patent filed, we’ll look more legitimate.” And yes, having a patent can be impressive. But its value comes from use, not existence.
For example, a well-crafted patent can open up partnerships with larger firms. It can create a moat that makes acquisition more likely.
It can even lead to revenue, if you license it out to non-competing players in other markets.
But none of that happens unless your patent is written with precision. The claims need to be strong enough to hold up under scrutiny and flexible enough to apply across multiple use cases.
This is why you need to work with patent counsel who not only understand the legal process but also your business vision.
Think of your patent like real estate. The more valuable the location and design, the more others will want to build around it—or on it. You need to own that space before anyone else does.
From Filing to Commercialization: The Strategic Middle
Between the time you file and the time your patent is granted, there’s a long window.
Many companies overlook this period. But it’s one of the best opportunities to shape your position in the market.
Once your application is published (usually 18 months after filing), competitors can see what you’re protecting. This can shape how they develop their own offerings.
If your filing is clear and well-structured, it signals that your business knows exactly what it’s doing.
This is also the time when strategic marketing and investor communications matter most. You can publicly say, “We have a pending patent on this method,” which carries weight.
Just make sure what you filed actually aligns with your product messaging—because others will check.
Also, this is the window to think about your next filing. Don’t wait for your first patent to be granted before you protect the next layer. Patents often work best as a portfolio, not as standalones.
If you have additional uses, improvements, or integrations planned, you can file continuation or divisional applications that build on your first one.
Advice for Businesses on a Patent Journey
If you’re running a startup, don’t wait too long to protect what you’ve built. But don’t rush blindly either.
Start by documenting every version of your invention, every insight you discover, and every method that could lead to a competitive edge.
Then, bring in a patent expert who can look at your idea not just as an invention, but as a platform. Share your product roadmap. Talk about your long-term plans.
A good attorney will use that context to help you file something that holds real value—not just in court, but in the market.
Finally, treat your patent process like product development. Iterate. Test. Improve. A great patent evolves alongside your business.
Where Formulas and Natural Laws Fit In
The Legal Walls Around Ideas Found in Nature
Understanding where formulas and natural laws fit into the patent world is key to avoiding wasted effort.
For businesses, this is not just about legal definitions—it’s about where you draw the line between discovery and invention.
The law doesn’t reward discovery alone, no matter how groundbreaking it may seem. It only rewards applied invention.
So, if your team finds a novel mathematical relationship between temperature changes and a machine’s energy use, that relationship can’t be protected on its own.
That knowledge is treated as part of the shared toolbox of science. But what you build using that relationship can be a different story.
The law allows you to patent how you use the rule—not the rule itself.
This legal boundary can feel frustrating, especially for research-heavy startups. But it can also guide you to smarter strategy.
The takeaway is simple: your job is to move from explanation to execution.
Business Models Built on Natural Principles Still Need Differentiation
Many startups base their products or platforms on natural behavior—human attention, biological processes, or environmental cycles.
But if the foundation of your product is built purely on observing nature or modeling a natural rule, you’re walking a fine line.
The courts will strip your claims down to their core and ask, “Is this just a law of nature dressed up in tech terms?”
If it is, it won’t stand.
To get ahead of this risk, businesses need to design with intention from day one. Don’t just use the natural law as a starting point.
Think about how you wrap it in something mechanical, digital, or process-driven. Make your innovation about the system, not the principle.
If you’re building a platform that uses circadian rhythm data to optimize performance, don’t focus your patent filing on the rhythm itself.
Focus on how your engine collects, syncs, and translates it into action.
Build claims around timing mechanisms, thresholds, system interactions—anything that shows real-world machinery, not just scientific beauty.
This is how you move from theory into protected ground.
The Risk of Over-Claiming: A Common Startup Mistake
In the excitement of early development, teams often overestimate what’s patentable. They try to protect too much—filing claims that read more like scientific papers than technical designs.
This approach not only leads to rejection, but it can also backfire if you reveal too much publicly without protection.
Instead of claiming the entire formula, focus on how that formula works inside your product.
The moment you try to patent the formula as if it were a product, you invite scrutiny.
But if the formula is a component in a broader method or system, you stand on firmer ground.
Strategically, this means mapping your invention like a system diagram. What inputs come in? What steps occur internally?
What actions result? Somewhere in that process, you can usually identify a technical mechanism or structure worth protecting.
And once you do, that’s where your legal team should focus.
Building Defensible IP Around Scientific Insight
If your innovation is powered by a law of nature or mathematical insight, the key is to create an ecosystem that surrounds it.
The insight may be the brain of the invention, but your job is to build the body.
Think about interface systems, feedback loops, automated triggers, storage layers, data preprocessing—all the things that make the idea usable.
These are often where patents win. They demonstrate structure. They show constraint. They prove that the invention does more than explain something—it performs.
Also, train your team to speak in systems. When describing your technology, avoid relying on the formula as the product.
Instead, describe what the system does with that formula. This changes how investors, partners, and even patent examiners see your work.
A company that says, “We built a platform that uses a metabolic rate formula” is different from one that says, “We created a wearable that continuously captures heat output and adapts drug dosage in real-time through a closed-loop feedback system.”
Both may be powered by a formula. But only one shows invention.
How to Future-Proof Your Patent Positioning
When your product or service relies on natural principles, you have to think ahead.
Patent law won’t protect what’s already part of the scientific commons. But it can protect the paths you carve through that commons.
This means you need to anticipate how competitors might try to repackage your discovery.
Could they use the same formula in a different interface? Could they plug it into a different software? Could they offer a cloud-based model instead of on-device?
If the answer is yes, you must patent your ecosystem, not just your current solution. Build layers around your innovation.
Consider filing multiple related patents that each guard a specific edge—data collection, processing, delivery, integration.
This doesn’t just keep competitors out. It keeps your business options open.
You can license one part of the system, develop another for internal use, and spin off a third into a new product line.
This is how companies protect more than a formula. They protect a future.
You Can’t Patent the Formula, But You Might Patent the Application
The Difference Between Concept and Execution
Businesses that work with cutting-edge tech, science, or algorithms often fall into the trap of thinking that the idea is enough. But the truth is, in patent law, it rarely is.
The core idea, especially if it is a formula, is just that—a concept. And the law draws a firm line between a concept and a tool. If you want protection, your job is to build the tool.
This shift in mindset can make or break how your business leverages intellectual property.
The key is understanding that while you can’t own the mathematical truth or scientific fact, you can own the engine that puts it to use in a way no one else has done before.
If your business can cross that line from raw concept to engineered solution, it can unlock real, defensible value.
What makes something patentable isn’t that it’s brilliant—it’s that it’s actionable. It solves a problem in a way that’s novel and concrete.
The formula might be the backbone, but it has to live inside a system or method that goes beyond explanation.
The Strategic Play: Wrap the Formula in Functionality
Once your team discovers or creates a formula, the next step should not be “file a patent.” The next step should be “design a working system that proves this formula creates value in the real world.”
This means asking questions like: How will this formula be used? What devices or environments does it interact with? What happens before and after the formula does its job?
The answers to these questions help you turn a concept into a use case. They allow you to design a process, a flow, or a structure around the formula.
That’s where the magic happens—where an abstract idea becomes a working system with measurable effect.
If your company is serious about building a defensible moat, this has to be baked into your R&D process. The moment a new formula or method is discovered, start mapping its potential endpoints.
Think of it like wiring electricity through a grid. The raw power exists, but until it’s routed into homes, machines, and tools, it can’t be commercialized.
The formula is not the product. The process that uses it to generate outcomes is. That’s the story your patent needs to tell.
Turn Algorithms Into Machines, Not Theories
If your formula lives inside software, that doesn’t make it any less valuable. But software patents are closely watched and often challenged.
So, when you design your system, focus on how the formula integrates into the entire flow. Don’t just say “this algorithm calculates.”
Show how it takes input, transforms data, and outputs something specific and practical. Explain the structure, not just the logic.
This level of detail matters not just for legal approval, but for competition. If your patent filing is vague or purely theoretical, it becomes easy to work around.
But if your application is tightly tied to how the algorithm interacts with a user interface, or how it automates a physical action, your IP becomes harder to replicate—and easier to defend.
Think of your algorithm or formula like an engine. It has value, yes.
But without the car frame, the wheels, and the controls, it doesn’t go anywhere. So the strategy is to patent the car, not just the engine.
Why Simplicity Doesn’t Mean Weakness
Many founders worry that turning a powerful formula into a simple product flow will somehow weaken their invention.
The fear is that the more it looks like a use case, the less “intellectual” it feels. But this thinking is backward. A good patent is not about academic strength—it’s about business defensibility.
The more clearly and simply your application of a formula solves a real-world issue, the stronger your position.
Patent examiners are not there to judge how groundbreaking your theory is. They are there to see whether it works in a structured, new, and specific way.
So embrace simplicity. Build your patent filing like a user journey. Make it easy to see how the system activates, what steps it takes, and what results it delivers.
That’s what gets protection. That’s what makes your patent a weapon, not just a document.
How to Engineer for Patent Strength from Day One
If your company works heavily with models, simulations, or mathematical processes, start treating every project as a potential engine for application.
As soon as you validate a formula, immediately build a sandbox around it. What kinds of inputs would users give it?
What outputs would they want? What tools, sensors, or data layers does it need to function?
Build prototypes that aren’t just academically sound, but operationally specific. Then document those flows, steps, and interactions in detail.
This not only helps with patent filings, but also gives your development team a clearer roadmap.
You’re not just protecting the formula. You’re protecting the way the formula creates impact.
You’re showing that without your specific design, others wouldn’t get the same result. That’s how you build a wall around your business.
The Long Game: Licensing, Positioning, and Expansion
Once you’ve secured a patent on the application of a formula, you open doors beyond just making products.
You create licensing opportunities for others who want to use the same insight in different industries.
You build credibility when negotiating deals or raising capital. And you keep options open for entering new markets without needing to re-invent everything.
But all of that starts with one principle: don’t protect what the world already understands. Protect what only your system can do with it.
The Key Court Cases You Should Know
Why Court Rulings Shape Your Business Strategy
For any business considering a patent based on scientific principles or data-driven models, understanding court rulings isn’t optional—it’s strategic groundwork.
These decisions define what can and cannot be protected. They don’t just impact legal departments. They shape product design, messaging, and even go-to-market timelines.
When a court draws a boundary around what’s considered a law of nature or an abstract idea, it’s not doing it to frustrate innovation. It’s doing it to keep the playing field open.
But for smart businesses, these boundaries are not barriers. They are maps. They show where others have failed, which means you can now chart a smarter path.
If you understand how courts think, you can build differently. You can patent more effectively. You can avoid the traps that have swallowed up even well-funded companies.
The Mayo Case: What Businesses Misread
The Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories ruling didn’t just say that using a natural law wasn’t enough.
It said that adding conventional steps—ones that doctors already do—doesn’t make your method an invention.
That’s what got the claims thrown out. The court saw that the test method simply observed how the body responded to a drug and told doctors what to do.
There was no inventive concept in how the method applied the discovery. The insight was useful, but the execution was ordinary.
For businesses, this ruling has a deeper lesson: don’t rely on routine steps to carry your innovation. If your invention just packages known behaviors around a formula, that’s not innovation. It’s instruction.
So what should you do? Look at the chain of steps around your formula and identify where you’re breaking from standard practice.
Maybe you’re using an algorithm to monitor in real time when others only report results once a day.
Maybe your system feeds the result into an automated control mechanism instead of human decision-making. These are the moments of novelty that must show up in your patent claim.
When you plan your product development, build in that inventive step from the start. Don’t bolt it on later.
The Alice Decision: What Tech Companies Must Learn
In Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, the idea was to use a computer system to settle financial trades by minimizing risk between parties.
The Supreme Court ruled that the claims were based on abstract ideas—something people had already done mentally or with pen and paper. Simply moving it to a computer didn’t make it inventive.
The court asked a hard question: Does this software do something fundamentally new, or just automate what was already being done?
This case sent shockwaves through the software industry. Many existing patents were suddenly vulnerable.
But again, the ruling offered something powerful for those willing to see it.
If your business builds software that relies on formulas, risk models, or optimization systems, the lesson is this: make sure your software isn’t just a digital notepad.
Show that it does something qualitatively new. That might mean triggering an event, adapting on the fly, or integrating with physical systems in real time.
For product teams, this means tighter collaboration with legal early in the build cycle.
Before finalizing feature sets, loop in your IP counsel and ask, “Would this be considered inventive or just an automation?” That one question can change how you design—and how you win.
Bilski and the Business Method Wake-Up Call
In Bilski v. Kappos, the applicant tried to patent a method for hedging energy price risk. The Supreme Court rejected the claim, saying it was too abstract.
There was no specific machine, no transformation of data into something tangible, and no clear technological improvement.
This case sent a clear message to anyone in financial services, insurance, or data analytics: if you’re building a process that lives purely in ideas and math, don’t expect the courts to see it as invention.
But it also laid the groundwork for a solution. The justices didn’t say business methods are never patentable. They said vague, untethered ones won’t fly.
If your company operates in any market where strategy is the product—hedging, pricing, decision trees, scoring—you need to think hard about how you present your solution.
Can you tie it to a system? Can you demonstrate a physical or digital transformation of input into something measurable?
For founders and IP strategists, this means building more than just logic. Build platforms, build processes, build implementations that go beyond spreadsheets and diagrams.
And when you document them for your patent, focus on the mechanics, not just the math.
Modern Takeaways: Read the Courts Like a Playbook
Every one of these court decisions shares a theme: the law wants more than insight. It wants infrastructure. It wants you to show that your invention walks, talks, and delivers.
That means your business should not treat court rulings as historical footnotes. Treat them as tactical guides.
They tell you what failed. And more importantly, they point to what would have worked if the application had been engineered differently.
If you’re about to file for patent protection, study these cases not just with your lawyer, but with your product and R&D teams.
Extract the principles. Compare them to your architecture. Ask what needs to be more specific, more dynamic, more real.
Because the formula isn’t the invention. The act of transforming that formula into a working system—that’s where the patent lives.
Wrapping It Up
The line between what can and cannot be patented is thin, but it is firm. You cannot patent a law of nature. You cannot patent a formula in isolation. You cannot patent something that exists independently of human design. But what you can patent is how you shape that knowledge into a tool. Into a method. Into a machine. Into something that didn’t exist before you built it.
Leave a Reply