Focus on Chemistry, Materials & Life Sciences
If you work in chemistry, materials, or life sciences, you do not compete against “one prior art document.” You compete against decades of papers, patents, and the occasional PhD thesis that lives only in a university basement and somehow still shows up in an examiner’s search report.
The practical question is not “Can I patent anything?” It is: What can I patent that (a) has a realistic grant path and (b) is valuable enough to justify the cost? This article focuses on that reality: claimable strategies that work in established fields, concrete examples, and what investors should look for.
The only mindset that reliably works: “Different + Useful + Defensible”
In crowded domains, patents succeed when the invention is:
- Different in a specific, claimable way (not “better,” but “different by features”),
- Useful via a credible technical effect (often supported by comparative data), and
- Defensible (the distinguishing features are hard to design around and are well-supported by the application).
That sounds simple. Execution is not. This is also why an IP specialist is not optional when you’re trying to obtain enforceable rights in a saturated landscape: the difference between “nice R&D story” and “grantable, enforceable claims” is usually in the drafting and evidence strategy, not the brilliance of the invention.
What typically does get granted in crowded chemical / materials / biotech spaces
1) Selection inventions: “The haystack is known; your needle is not”
A classic route in chemistry/materials is claiming a narrow selection from a broader known disclosure: a sub-range, subset, or specific combination not clearly and directly taught.
When it tends to work (EU reality):
- The selected range/subset is narrow and not an arbitrary pick.
- It is sufficiently removed from examples or preferred embodiments in the prior art.
- You can show a special technical effect across the claimed selection (not just one lucky data point). EPO practice recognizes that mere optimization often fails unless tied to a demonstrated technical effect.
Concrete example pattern (formulations):
- Prior art: “Surfactant A 5–20 wt%, solvent B 10–40 wt%, water balance,” with examples around 15% A and 30% B.
- Your invention: A = 6–8%, B = 12–16%, plus a defined mixing order → yields dramatically improved stability at low temperature or prevents phase separation.
- Claimable: the narrow range + the stability effect (ideally demonstrated vs. closest prior art).
Investor lens: selection patents can be valuable if the selection is commercially important (e.g., only region where stability, viscosity, toxicity, or processability is acceptable). If it’s merely “slightly better,” the patent may be narrow and easy to design around.
2) Non-obvious combinations: “Known ingredients, unfamiliar result”
Combining known components is patentable when the combination is not a routine aggregation and shows a synergistic or unexpected effect (or solves a technical incompatibility that kept others from combining them).
What makes combinations work in practice:
- A reason the combination was not obvious to implement (e.g., instability, poisoning, incompatibility, processing barrier).
- Data showing the effect is more than additive or at least surprising.
Example pattern (materials):
- Known: additive X improves conductivity but ruins mechanical strength; additive Y improves strength but reduces conductivity.
- Your combo: X+Y in defined microstructure/processing yields both high conductivity and strength.
- Claimable: composition ranges + processing steps that produce the microstructure.
In prosecution, evidence matters. Comparative examples against the closest prior art are often decisive.
3) New use / new niche application: “Same thing, different problem”
New uses can be powerful—especially in life sciences and specialty chemicals—because the “new” is the purpose and technical context, not the molecule itself.
Real-world pattern (pharma): sildenafil’s repurposing is a textbook commercial example of value created by a new therapeutic use, even though the compound was known.
EU drafting note (practical):
- Medical methods are handled via “substance X for use in treating Y” formats in Europe, whereas the U.S. uses method-of-treatment claims more directly.
Example pattern (chemicals/materials):
- Known polymer used as coating in packaging.
- New use: coating for medical devices where it reduces biofilm formation under defined sterilization regimes.
- Claimable: “polymer X for use as …” + preferably a functional/quantitative feature (e.g., biofilm reduction % under test method).
Investor lens: new-use claims can be valuable, but ask:
- Is the use hard to prove infringement (especially if it’s “use in a lab”)?
- Is there a clear market where the use is the main driver of sales?
4) “Minor” process changes that are actually non-trivial
Process patents in chemistry can look small on paper (“changed solvent,” “changed temperature,” “changed order of addition”). In crowded fields, they only matter if they deliver something business-critical:
- higher yield/selectivity,
- fewer impurities,
- improved scale-up safety,
- lower CAPEX/OPEX,
- regulatory advantage (e.g., impurity profile).
When it tends to be strong:
- The process change solves a known pain point (e.g., runaway risk, catalyst deactivation, fouling).
- The improvement is clearly shown at relevant scale or under “real process” constraints.
Claiming tip: don’t claim “a method comprising reacting A and B.” Claim the features that create the advantage (feed profile, residence time, impurity control, workup sequence) and include metrics where possible.
5) Parameter and property-based claiming: useful but dangerous
In materials and formulations, inventors love claiming by result (“high dispersibility,” “low viscosity,” “improved stability”). In Europe, that can work—but only if the application teaches how to achieve it across the claim scope and the parameter is clear and reproducible.
Practical guidance:
- Always define the test method (or standard) and conditions.
- Provide multiple examples spanning the scope.
- Provide comparisons vs. closest prior art.
Otherwise you risk clarity/sufficiency problems (and investors get nervous when enforceability is uncertain).
Patent value vs. grant prospects: how broad should you aim?
In crowded fields, the broadest claim is often not the best claim. The best claim is the one that:
- covers the commercially dominant embodiment, and
- is hard to design around, and
- has evidence supporting its technical effect.
A common high-value pattern is a “core narrow claim” that blocks realistic competitors, supported by:
- dependent claims covering preferred ranges/process variants,
- claims to use, product, process, and intermediate (where applicable),
- continuation/divisional strategy where available (more flexible in the U.S. than Europe).
This is exactly where a good IP professional earns their fee: structuring the application so you have multiple defensible fallbacks without painting yourself into a narrow corner from day one.
EU vs US (and why your strategy changes)
Europe (EPO)
- Examination is typically strict and structured; the EPO uses a problem–solution approach for inventive step.
- Selection/optimization often needs a credible technical effect across the claim.
- No general “one-year grace period” safety net for your own disclosures (with narrow exceptions), so file before you publish.
United States
- More flexibility in some claim formats (notably methods of treatment).
- A one-year grace period for inventor disclosures exists in U.S. law, which can rescue some situations that would be fatal in Europe.
- Obviousness analysis is framed differently; examiners often combine references and argue predictability, but robust evidence can still win.
Practical takeaway
If you are serious about Europe, treat confidentiality and filing timing as non-negotiable. If you are serious about global protection, align drafting so it works in both systems—again, a place where experienced IP counsel is critical.
What investors should look for (quick diligence checklist)
- What is the “claimable delta” over the closest prior art—stated in one sentence?
- Evidence quality: comparative data vs. closest prior art; not just “it works,” but “it works better.”
- Enforceability: can infringement be detected? (composition? process? use?)
- Design-around risk: can competitors swap one parameter and escape?
- Commercial coverage: does the likely granted scope cover the actual product roadmap?
- Jurisdiction strategy: EU filing before disclosure; sensible global filing plan.
- Freedom-to-operate awareness: owning a patent is not the same as having freedom to sell.
Investors often overvalue “a filed patent” and undervalue “a patent with credible scope and evidence.” The latter is what matters.
A brief, honest pro/contra view on “incremental” patents
Pro: Incremental patents can absolutely drive progress and investment. Many valuable innovations are improvements, new uses, or better manufacturing that make products viable or scalable.
Contra: The system can be used for “evergreening” strategies in pharma; critics argue follow-on patents can be used to delay generic entry without meaningful added benefit.
Reality in crowded fields: examiners (especially at the EPO) tend to be skeptical of trivial changes; your best defense is good technical story + good data + disciplined claim scope.
Practical next steps for inventors (what to do Monday morning)
- Map the closest 5–15 prior art references (patents + papers).
- Write your invention as differences vs. the closest reference (not as a stand-alone description).
- Generate comparative data where feasible (same conditions, side-by-side).
- Identify the commercially critical embodiment and ensure it is clearly enabled.
- Bring this package to an experienced IP specialist and ask:
- What is realistically grantable in the EU?
- What claim structure maximizes business value?
- What additional experiments increase grant odds the most per euro spent?
That last step is the most important. Patentability in crowded technical fields is rarely about one “magic argument.” It is about strategy, evidence, and wording—areas where a qualified IP professional can materially change the outcome.
Home 
Leave a Reply