From Concept to Patent Protection: Dispelling the Five Most Common Misconceptions Among Inventors

Securing patent protection is a crucial step in safeguarding innovative ideas. However, many inventors encounter obstacles not due to the complexity of the process itself, but because of persistent myths and misunderstandings. These misconceptions can hinder progress, delay protection, or even jeopardize the success of a patent application. In this article, we address five of the most prevalent myths about patents—and explain why it is essential to replace them with accurate, up-to-date information.

Myth 1: “Maintaining Secrecy Eliminates the Need for a Patent”

A widely held but flawed belief among inventors is that an invention can be adequately protected simply by keeping it confidential. While trade secret protection can be appropriate for certain types of innovations—particularly those that are difficult to reverse-engineer—it offers limited security. Once a trade secret is inadvertently disclosed or misappropriated, the legal protections vanish, leaving the inventor without recourse.

In contrast, a patent provides a robust, legally enforceable right to exclude others from producing, using, or selling the invention for a defined period—typically up to 20 years. Although obtaining a patent requires full public disclosure of the invention, this transparency is the trade-off for strong, exclusive rights and potential market advantage.

Myth 2: “An Idea Alone Is Sufficient for a Patent”

Contrary to popular belief, merely conceiving an idea does not entitle one to patent protection. While it might seem wise to rush a patent filing to secure an early priority date, filing too soon can actually backfire. Patent law requires that your invention be described in enough detail for someone skilled in the field to understand and reproduce it—this is known as sufficiency of disclosure (Article 83 EPC). Filing too early—before technical details, processes, or embodiments have been fully worked out—may result in an application that fails to meet this standard. If the disclosure is found to be insufficient, the application may be refused or, if already granted, later revoked or invalidated in opposition or litigation proceedings. Crucially, you cannot add new technical subject matter after filing, as this would violate the legal prohibition against introducing added matter (Article 123(2) EPC). Therefore, an early yet incomplete filing may not be salvageable.

A premature filing may also lead to claims that are too narrow, speculative, or unsupported by the description. This weakens the enforceability of the patent and limits its commercial value. Worse still, an overly broad claim not backed by sufficient disclosure may be considered non-compliant with the requirement of support and clarity (Article 84 EPC), rendering it vulnerable to objections or invalidation.

Myth 3: “Patents Are Reserved for Large Corporations and Cutting-Edge Technology”

It is a common misconception that patents are exclusively the domain of multinational corporations or high-tech industries. In reality, patent protection extends far beyond advanced technologies; it encompasses a wide spectrum of innovations—from simple mechanical devices and industrial tools to food formulations, textile designs, and everyday consumer products.

Whether you are an independent inventor, a start-up entrepreneur, or a small to mid-sized enterprise, your invention may be eligible for patent protection if it meets the core legal criteria of novelty, non-obviousness and industrial applicability. Overlooking this opportunity can result in missed competitive advantages and foregone commercial value.

Myth 4: “Filing a Patent Application Grants Global Protection Automatically”

Patents are jurisdictional rights, meaning protection is only granted within the territories where the application is filed and approved. A patent granted in one country does not extend to others by default. If your business operates internationally or faces competition abroad, it is crucial to develop a targeted filing strategy.

This may involve regional applications—such as through the European Patent Office (EPO)—international pathways like the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), or direct national filings in key markets. Effective early-stage planning helps optimize both geographical coverage and budgetary constraints.

Myth 5: “Patent Protection Is Too Costly to Justify”

While it is true that obtaining a patent entails financial investment—including official fees, legal services, and, where applicable, translation and maintenance costs—this expenditure should be viewed in light of the potential return on investment.

A well-structured patent can enhance company valuation, open licensing and partnership opportunities, and offer robust legal safeguards against infringement. Moreover, flexible and staged patenting strategies are available to accommodate various budget levels and business timelines. For many, patenting is not just a legal step—it is a strategic asset.

If you are considering patent protection and would like tailored advice, Brantsandpatents is here to support you from concept to grant—and beyond.