A lot of startups talk about patents in a vague way. Some think patents are essential from day one. Others think patents are mainly about suing competitors. In my view, both of those instincts are often wrong, or at least incomplete.
For most startups, the real reason to build a patent portfolio is not immediate enforcement. It is strategic leverage.
One reason is valuation. Investors often expect technology companies to have at least some patent positioning, especially if the company is building something technically differentiated. A patent portfolio can signal that the company is developing defensible technology rather than just features that can be copied. It is not a magic wand, but it can strengthen how investors view the company’s long-term value.
Another reason is deterrence. A patent portfolio can make it harder for competitors, especially larger companies, to treat a startup as legally defenseless. If a larger company risks infringing the startup’s patents, it may be much less willing to initiate a patent fight, because doing so creates counterclaim exposure. In practice, that deterrent effect is often more important than any actual plan to sue.
Patents are also extremely important in collaboration and partnership settings. If a startup is entering joint development discussions with a larger company, filing patent applications beforehand can be critical. Without that protection, the startup may enter the relationship with very little leverage. With it, the startup is in a much stronger position when negotiating ownership, licensing, development rights, or any future spin-off arrangement.
At the same time, I think there are a few common misconceptions that founders should avoid.
First, patents are usually not practical offensive weapons for early-stage startups. Patent litigation is extremely expensive, slow, and distracting. Most startups do not have the resources to enforce patents aggressively, and they should not build a portfolio based on that assumption.
Second, patents do not solve the patent troll problem. Patent trolls do not make or sell products, so they are not deterred by the risk of infringing your patents. A portfolio may still have strategic value in other ways, but it is not a shield against that kind of actor.
Third, patents are often overemphasized too early. Many startups assume they need a patent strategy immediately, before the core product or technical differentiation has really matured. In reality, the most valuable patentable ideas often emerge only after the team has spent time building, testing, and refining the technology. Filing too early can lock in weak disclosures and waste resources on ideas that are not yet commercially meaningful.
So my general view is this: startups should think seriously about patents, but they should think about them for the right reasons.
A good patent portfolio can increase enterprise value, improve negotiating leverage, and reduce strategic vulnerability. That is usually much more important than the theoretical ability to sue someone later.
The real goal is not “get patents because startups are supposed to have patents.” The goal is to identify the parts of the technology that are actually worth protecting, and then build a portfolio that supports the company’s business position as it grows.