Are patents worth it for a software startup?

Take the objections at full strength, because they are mostly true. Under the Alice framework, claims directed at abstract ideas implemented on generic computers are routinely rejected or invalidated, and a large share of pre-2014 software patents would fail it. Software moves faster than prosecution: pendency commonly runs two to four years, several product generations in startup time. Copying is rarely literal, so a patent on your exact mechanism often misses what a competitor actually builds. Your code is already protected by copyright and your internals by trade secret law, both free. And the field is littered with issued software patents so vague or narrow they were never worth their fees.

Any honest filing decision starts from there, rather than from a vendor's enthusiasm. Ours included: we sell invention and strategy services, so discount accordingly and check the reasoning yourself.

Three moments give software patents most of their value. Acquisition: diligence teams ask what protects the technology being bought, and pending applications with early priority dates are an answer that cannot be created retroactively. Defense: a small portfolio gives you counter-assertion ammunition if a competitor or their patents come after you, which changes settlement math even when you would never sue first. Fundraising: published research has associated patent holdings with meaningfully higher odds of raising venture funding, a signaling effect that is real even if you find it slightly irrational.

Survivability under Alice also varies by subject matter. Claims grounded in concrete technical improvements (infrastructure, systems performance, ML architectures with specific technical character, embedded and hardware-adjacent work) have fared meaningfully better than claims dressing up business logic. Whether your invention clears that bar is a legal judgment for a patent attorney; ipCG is a consultancy and does not render legal opinions.

File when an invention passes four tests: it solves a technical problem with a technical solution, you could detect a competitor using it from outside their codebase, it will still matter in five years, and it sits on the roadmap's critical path. Most things engineers build fail at least one test, which is fine; hold those as trade secrets or publish them defensively to block others from patenting them, both far cheaper than filing.

For the few that pass, invest in the disclosure before counsel drafts. The technical depth that survives examination has to come from the inventors, and in our experience strong disclosures can cut prosecution time by 30 to 40 percent.