That's cold comfort when your startup has six months of runway left.
Patents are not operationally meaningful to startups.
2. Patents may not be important to startups, but having patent applications certainly is. They help a lot in securing VC financing. There are multiple studies and surveys showing this. One less obvious reason why VCs may be interested in patents is studies also show a strong correlation between having patents and making successful exits.
> For instance, three years ago, Franklin submitted an application for a startup that needed to secure crucial patents before it filed for public offering. It was being sued by a large company in the same space, and so it paid the Patent Office an extra fee to fast-track the application.
Reading between the lines a little, it looks like a small company with tech that challenged a big company was being hassled by the big company and needed the patents to put them on a favorable-enough legal footing to not interfere with their IPO.
The article (and a sibling comment) also mentions investor reasons ("If it’s a startup trying to get traction against an established player, they may not get funding because they don’t get the patent in place,") but I don't understand why that's the case unless it goes back to some kind of signaling that you won't be an easy legal target. I'd think all a patent would show is that you have an idea, which investors would already know and is true regardless of whether the patent is pending or approved.
Is it just the bigger company will hold off because you now have "ammunition" to also sue them for infringement in a kind of MAD standoff?
For example, Yahoo sued Google for patent infringement over Ads right before Google's IPO.
It then sued Facebook for patent infringement right before Facebook's IPO
etc