Developments in AI, machine learning, and automation have given robots capabilities that would have seemed extraordinary a decade ago. As competition intensifies, the physical AI race is becoming less likely to be won by whoever builds the best robot, and more likely to be won by whoever owns the technology that determines its behavior.

I’ve spent 20 years as a patent attorney and filed more than 300 patents across industrial automation. The pattern is consistent: The startups that lose out are the ones that delay.

Robotics founders need to decide what to patent, what to keep secret, and how to protect their most important technologies before competitors do. Failure to do so could leave them locked out of their own core mechanisms, blocked from the market, or acquired for parts instead of value.

When the Behavior Is the Invention

Boston Dynamics sued Ghost Robotics for infringement of core technology related to robotic recovery—how its machine got back up after a fall.

In a sector moving this fast, a strong IP strategy must be deployed from the outset—not treated as a post-funding afterthought.

Fewer Patents, Sharper Aim

Patenting every component is not practical for robotics startups. A team that tries will exhaust its engineering time—and while it's filing the 40th application, a competitor may file first on the one that actually mattered.

The aim instead should be to identify one or two novel mechanisms, architectures, or processes central enough to the robot's function that competitors would struggle to copy the machine without them. KAIKAKU's food assembly robot illustrates the principle: the defensible core was a central mechanism, not the entire machine.

From there, a layered patent strategy can protect core innovations and make it expensive for competitors to design around them—a few patents guarding the advantage itself, ringed by a wider defensive perimeter.

What Not to Publish

"A patent is a publication. For some innovations, this is the last thing you should do."

Some strategically sensitive innovations—defense technology among them—should remain confidential rather than be patented, since a published filing can reveal exactly which problem was solved and where the advantage sits. By contrast, mechanisms embodied in a finished, reverse-engineerable product are stronger patent candidates.

The Cost Problem—and the AI Answer

The economics have historically locked startups out. A single European application runs €13,000 to €18,000 ($14,636.7 to $20,266.2) or more. Lightbringer, whose co-founders include CTO Markus Andreasson and CCO Ola Wassvik alongside Davies, uses AI to streamline patent portfolio management and reduce costs, with AI handling documentation, analysis, and drafting groundwork while a qualified attorney retains responsibility for filings.

"Filing gets up to 70% faster and the attorney's time goes where it should: on the judgment calls, and at a fraction of the traditional cost."

The takeaway for startups: the value lies in identifying, protecting, and strengthening the most important innovations—not simply filing more patents.

A strong IP strategy doesn’t necessarily mean more patents

A strong patent portfolio should be the foundation of every robotics IP strategy. As RoboSense’s IP head warned last year, patent disputes in robotics are likely to multiply as they did in the smartphone industry in the 2010s, when global legal battles showed how patents could shape licensing, acquisitions and market control.

This does not mean patenting every component. A robotics startup that tries to do this will run out of engineering time before it runs out of components to patent. And while it’s filing the 40th application, a competitor will file first on the one that really mattered.

Know that some of your best inventions shouldn’t be published

A patent is a publication. For some innovations, this is the last thing you should do.

For example, for a manufacturing process or calibration technique that is difficult to reverse-engineer from the finished robot, keeping it confidential may be a more cost-effective way to retain competitive advantage than filing a patent.

For strategically sensitive innovations, such as in defense technology, a published patent could tell competitors – and adversaries – exactly which problem you solved and where your advantage sits.

By contrast, a patent is likely to make more sense when an invention is embodied in the finished product and could be reverse-engineered by a competitor. For example, a novel robotic mechanism that enables a robot to move faster, more precisely or more efficiently would be difficult to keep secret once the robot is on the market. In that case, patent protection can give the startup a period of exclusivity over the mechanism.

Focus on the one or two inventions the robot can’t work without

When a startup does come to build its patent portfolio, the aim should not be to try and patent an entire machine. Startups should aim to identify one or two novel mechanisms, architectures, or processes that are central enough to the function of the robot that without which, it would be genuinely difficult for competitors to copy the robot.

This was an approach that we helped London-based food-assembly robotics startup KAIKAKU to use in building its strategic patent portfolio. The problem that KAIKAKU solved was never moving a bowl from one place to another. It was moving it at speed without making a mess. This behavior was achieved through a core motion mechanism that was novel and central enough to the function of the robot that it became one of its “crown jewel” patents.

Make it more difficult to design around the core patent

Once the crown jewel inventions are secured, startups can build a wider defensive ecosystem to protect the surrounding architectures that make the core innovation commercially useful — and that a competitor might otherwise use to design around the core patent.

The result is layered. A few patents protect the advantage itself. A wider ring of patents makes designing around it expensive enough that most competitors won’t try. For startups, this can create not only stronger protection against competitors, but also greater leverage in licensing, investment, partnerships and potential acquisition discussions.

Take advantage of AI to make quality patent protection affordable

For a resource-constrained startup, even the most streamlined patent portfolio can be a huge financial burden. A single European application, properly drafted and prosecuted, runs €13,000 to €18,000 ($14,636.7 to $20,266.2 U.S.) or more once attorney fees are included. Multiply that across three or four crown jewels and a defensive ring, and you have a line item most seed-stage founders can’t justify.

The challenge is to find a commercially viable IP strategy without compromising on the patent quality, and without diverting scarce resources away from product development.

Here, advancements in AI provide a clear opportunity to make quality IP management and patent filing accessible for startups. Most of the work that goes into a patent is not judgment. It is documentation, analysis and drafting. When AI does that groundwork and a qualified patent attorney reviews, refines and takes responsibility for what gets filed, the economics change.

Filing gets up to 70% faster and the attorney’s time goes where it should: on the judgment calls, and at a fraction of the traditional cost. In a market like physical AI, this is the difference between protecting the inventions that matter and leaving them to chance.

Don’t count your physical AI patents. Weigh them

The physical AI race will not be won by the company with the most patents. Patents alone won’t get a robot to market, either. But when a company’s advantage rests on a handful of hard-to-replicate mechanisms, leaving them unprotected is a no go.

The right approach is therefore strategic rather than quantitative. Identify the crown-jewel technologies that make the robot valuable, decide which should be patented and which should remain secret, and build a defensive ecosystem around them, using an AI-native patent platform to streamline the cost and complexity.

For startups, the value is not simply the ability to file more patents, but also the ability to spend more of their limited legal and engineering resources identifying, protecting, and strengthening the innovations that matter most.