Talking Heads: Safe sparks

From patents to trade secrets and trademarks, food-tech startups face tough choices about how to protect their innovations. Amity Reed explores the strategies, pitfalls, and lessons shaping IP in the alternative protein sector

Food-tech founders know how much of their success depends on innovation. Getting the processes right – whether it’s strain selection, the bioenvironment, or fermentation tweaks – can make or break a company. But what many underestimate is how much rides on protecting the science behind these developments. Misguided intellectual property (IP) strategy is not only a concern for investors but also an invisible leak of money, time, and focus – often without anyone realizing until it’s too late.

Considering the numerous challenges startups face, it’s easy to see why. Patents look like tangible proof of viability, something that can directly signal future value. But the reality is often more complicated. Filing too early can expose ideas before a company has built any real protection, while filing too late risks competitors securing the rights instead. Weakly drafted patents can hand rivals a blueprint, while bloated portfolios of low-quality filings drain scarce resources. All the while, trade secrets, contracts, and trademarks – often the more practical forms of protection – get pushed to the sidelines.

The alternative protein sector adds its own unique twist to these pressures. Unlike software, where products can scale quickly once the code is written, food-tech ventures face years of process development and costly manufacturing build-out. That means IP strategies must cover not just the end product but also the upstream methods that went into its creation. Patents filed at the wrong time in the R&D cycle risk becoming irrelevant once the process shifts at commercial scale.

Why freedom to operate matters

At the same time, competition is fierce. With hundreds of companies chasing similar targets – better textures, cheaper fermentation, higher yields – the risk of overlap is high. Freedom-to-operate checks are becoming just as important as the filings themselves, since a single blocking patent can derail a route to market. In such a crowded landscape, strength comes less from the sheer number of patents and more from how well a company has mapped the competitive space.

Scale-up brings another layer of complexity: IP strategies must be flexible enough to adapt to new processes, new geographies, and rapid cycles of innovation.

So how can startups avoid IP becoming a costly distraction rather than a protective moat? To find out, we caught up with five IP attorneys and one innovative food-tech founder about what’s working, what’s not, and how to build strategies that actually support commercial success.

Nick Sutcliffe, Mewburn Ellis

On the surface, the alt-protein sector faces many of the same IP challenges as other high-tech industries: ensuring freedom to operate, choosing between patents and trade secrets, and balancing speed to market with protection. But unlike sectors that are purely biotech or consumer goods, alt-protein companies must also navigate a hybrid space with unique complexities. When technology merges with a food industry with long-established norms and behaviors, gaining consumer trust becomes as important as innovation. This dual identity means food-tech businesses must walk a fine line between looking to the future and meeting market demands.

Nick Sutcliffe, Partner and Patent Attorney at IP firm Mewburn Ellis, describes what he believes a strong IP position looks like for an alt-protein company. “Like other sectors, a strong IP position protects technology that adds commercial value to a company’s product or process in key geographies, such as markets and manufacturing hubs,“ he says. “This not only keeps competitors at a distance but also supports collaborations, partnerships, and outsourcing that may be required during scale-up. A strong position must also be flexible enough to accommodate rapid innovation cycles that may change the technologies most important to a company in the sector.”

So what aspects of IP strategy does Sutcliffe think are particularly challenging for food-tech startups? He cites heavy cost constraints and the tendency to view IP portfolio development as secondary to technology development, as well as pressure to hit commercialization milestones. Additionally, he notes that the business models of these startups tend to be less geared toward IP than those in sectors that are more heavily regulated, such as pharmaceuticals.

Too many startups rush into ‘quick and dirty’ patents, but weak filings can undermine strategy and prove fatal later on

The sector may also naturally steer companies toward trade secrets rather than patents, Sutcliffe believes. “The technology of many startups often involves processes and microbial strains that are amenable to trade secret protection, which is in principle cheap,” he says. “In contrast, patent protection is relatively expensive, and it may be challenging to meet the legal criteria for patentability in this sector, especially for novel food products themselves.”

That’s not to say patents aren’t necessary, he stresses. “I am often told they’re not valuable or useful in food tech. This is wrong. While IP budgets may be lower than in other sectors, carefully considered patent applications can increase a company’s value and facilitate interactions with investors, collaborators, and other partners.”

Avoiding common mistakes
One of the biggest misjudgments Sutcliffe sees from alt-protein companies seeking patents is founders who – keen to impress investors – file overambitious or indefensible patent applications that don’t advance the commercial strategy and raise more questions than they answer. There are other rookie mistakes, too. “It is common for startups to try to control costs by filing ‘quick and dirty’ patent applications to establish a priority date, with a view to preparing a more complete application at the end of the priority period 12 months later,” he says. “This is a high-risk strategy because a ‘quick and dirty’ application may not be sufficient to establish a priority date in many jurisdictions. This can be fatal if the priority date is needed later to avoid the impact of an intervening publication.”

Identifying what not to do is helpful, but what proactive steps would Sutcliffe recommend to an early-stage alt-protein startup to establish a solid IP strategy? Filing patent applications selectively on assets key to achieving business objectives is a good place to start, he feels. “It is also important to identify assets suitable for protection as trade secrets and take active steps to ensure these are recognized and maintained as secrets. While detailed FTO analysis is not always appropriate for an early-stage startup, some awareness of the IP landscape and areas of white space with less competition is advisable to avoid headaches later on.”

Kerry Rees, HGF

When a company is faced with the decision to either file a patent or keep a process integral to its business as a trade secret, there are several factors to consider. Patents offer security and credibility, of course, but the flexibility, affordability, and faster implementation of processes maintained as trade secrets make them an appealing option for some businesses.

Kerry Rees, Partner and Patent Attorney at HGF, one of Europe’s leading IP-specialist law firms, explains how the determination is often made and what startups should be mindful of when weighing the decision. “Something might be patentable but the claim would be so narrow that it is easy for competitors to work around, so I would query whether the process is worth patenting or if it’s better to keep the development secret,” he says. “Additionally, know-how – the day-to-day knowledge developed as to how a process can work optimally – might not meet the novelty requirements for a patent to be granted, in which case it would be better kept secret.”

Timing is another well-established factor in whether and when to file a patent. Concerns about constricting its scope by filing prematurely must be balanced against the risks of filing too late and the delays this can cause. With most applications being published 18 months from the initial filing and protection lasting 20 years, these are critical aspects to consider. Rees shares his perspective. “Whether a tech development is likely to be important for longer than 20 years should be considered when balancing whether to file for a patent application or seek protection for trade secrets,“ he says. “On the other hand, the enforcement of a breach of a trade secret may be more difficult than enforcing a patent against an infringer. There are pros and cons to each system that need to be weighed up before deciding whether to patent or keep secret.”

Investor confidence and IP strategy
Beyond timing, the number of patents held is also a crucial factor in any food-tech company’s IP strategy. Especially for startups, the need to reassure and appease investors can sometimes overwhelm the steadier, slower approach needed to ensure consistency with the long-term business plan. Rees believes investor confidence can be secured with a solid IP strategy that aligns closely with the company’s core aims, including realistic budget considerations. “There are many facets to this,” he explains. “Investors may want to see that a company has documentation in place and a system for capturing IP so it isn’t lost, an idea about competitor IP and freedom-to-operate status, and to see that everyone in the business – from board to lab – understands what the business plan is and how the IP is supporting that.”

Whether a tech development is likely to be important for longer than 20 years should be considered when balancing whether to file for a patent or seek protection as a trade secret

Expanding on this further, Rees explains when an FTO exercise might be useful in assessing a patent’s suitability. “An FTO is an assessment of whether you potentially infringe third-party rights by carrying out your commercial activities. It is not the same as saying you’ve filed a patent application. An FTO can be done later when it is clearer what the final commercial product or process will be, but it is good practice to have an idea of what the patent landscape is and what might potentially be a barrier to market.”

Undertaking this kind of practical due diligence not only strengthens commercial and IP strategies but also reassures investors and greatly reduces the likelihood of legal issues in the future.

When asked what her one golden rule would be for founders in regard to IP management, Rees shares this final thought. “The patenting process is fraught with difficulties and making an error can be fatal to your business, so engagement with a qualified patent attorney early in the process is highly recommended. It’s crucial to choose one who really understands the underlying technology and has expertise and experience in your discipline, as this forms the foundation for how the patent application will progress and its chances of success.”

Eran Noah, Noah IP

In the fast-evolving world of alternative proteins, innovation moves quickly – but so do competitors. For startups, IP can be the difference between long-term success and being left behind. Eran Noah, Founder of NOAH IP and a European patent attorney, has worked extensively with food tech and life sciences companies and believes that getting IP strategy right early is key.

According to Noah, one of the biggest mistakes startups make is filing patents too soon. This doesn’t mean patents aren’t valuable, but that their role must be considered carefully. “Patents are powerful tools,” he says, “but they are only one piece of the puzzle. In some cases, trade secrets are more suitable, especially when protecting processes that are difficult to reverse-engineer.”

Another challenge startups often face is pressure from investors to file patents early to demonstrate defensibility. But Noah cautions against equating patent numbers with strength. “Investors like to see IP because it gives them confidence there’s a barrier to entry,” he explains. “But counting patents is meaningless unless they align with the company’s strategy. A single well-drafted patent can be more valuable than a portfolio of weak ones.” Instead, he advises founders to educate investors on the benefits of a layered ‘quality over quantity’ IP approach, with patents where appropriate, trade secrets where they make sense, and contracts to protect collaborations.

As with anything in technology-based commerce, timing is crucial – and perhaps the hardest part of patent strategy to get right. Filing too late risks competitors patenting similar innovations, but filing too early can create vulnerabilities. “It’s always a balance of risk,” says Noah. “The key is to file when you have a clear commercial direction. Then the IP can actually support your business rather than just being a piece of paper.”

The key is to file when you have a clear commercial direction. Then the IP can actually support your business rather than just being a piece of paper

Does that mean founders should think internationally from the start? Not necessarily, although it’s an important factor to consider, Noah believes. Acknowledging that filing globally is expensive, he recommends allowing the commercial strategy and budget to guide decisions on territorial coverage and its importance to the business’s success.

Avoiding rookie mistakes

In addition to seeing firsthand what works, Noah has also seen how weak strategies can unravel. “One of the most common rookie mistakes is filing a patent without considering how it could be designed around,” he reports. “If your competitor can bypass your claims with a small tweak, the patent has very little value.” By contrast, he recalls companies that invested the time to map their competitive landscape before filing. “Those who understand not just their own invention but the surrounding space – and draft their IP accordingly – are far more resilient when challenged.”

For startups, speed to market is often as critical as IP, creating a tension and urgency that is difficult to ignore. “Sometimes, getting your product out quickly is more important than perfecting your IP portfolio,” he says. “But that doesn’t mean ignoring IP. Even a provisional filing can buy you time while you refine your strategy.”

Collaboration adds another layer of complexity. With partnerships, manufacturers, and research institutions central to progress, safeguarding confidential information is vital. “Contracts matter,” Noah emphasizes. “Non-disclosure agreements are essential, but so is clarifying ownership of results before collaborating.”

Looking ahead, Noah believes IP strategy in food tech will become more sophisticated. “We’ll see hybrid approaches – patents combined with trade secrets, smart licensing, and collaborations where IP is co-developed,” he says. For early-stage startups in 2025, his golden rule is clear. “Don’t treat IP as a checkbox exercise. Build a strategy that grows with your company.”

For founders balancing science, speed, and investment pressures, Noah’s advice is to think holistically. “IP isn’t about collecting patents,” he says. “It’s about creating long-term value by aligning protection with your commercial goals.”

Sara Holland, Potter Clarkson

Ask most founders about intellectual property and they’ll talk about patents. But in alternative protein, where consumer trust and public perception are crucial, protecting the brand can be just as important as protecting the science. While patents cover the processes, technologies, or formulations that make a product possible, trademarks safeguard the identity of that product in the market – its name, logo, or packaging style that helps consumers recognize and trust a brand. In tech-heavy sectors such as alt-protein, where patents often dominate IP strategy, overlooking the role of trademarks can be a costly mistake down the line.

Sara Holland, Patent Attorney at Potter Clarkson, explains why trademarks are undervalued but vital in a solid IP strategy. “I’d say a key thing that distinguishes a strong IP position for an alt-protein company versus, for example, a pharma company, is a strong brand. A pharma company typically has a decent reputation, and the medical data often speaks for itself, but a food company has to gain public trust and entice customers, so a strong brand presence supported by appropriate trademarks is very important.”

The startup dilemma

For most food-tech startups, the early stage is rarely straightforward. Between the founders’ desire to perfect the science that underpins everything and pressure from investors to secure patents quickly, many find it challenging to conduct the proof-of-concept testing that produces robust data. “A startup faces the pressure of filing patent applications early on when they may not have secured as much data as we would have liked to properly support the application, but without the patent application they can’t access further funds – a chicken-and-egg situation!” Holland says. “The food-tech biotech startups I work with also tend to be founded by people who are not long out of academia and don’t have a good grounding in IP strategy, so there is a lot for them to learn.”

A food company has to gain public trust and entice customers, so a strong brand presence supported by appropriate trademarks is very important

And what about investors – what lessons can be learned to make the process of securing IP smoother from their perspective? Holland’s experience is that responses vary widely, from those who don’t consider IP at all to those who engage firms like Potter Clarkson to evaluate it thoroughly before making decisions. Investors want to know from the outset whether a company owns the exclusive rights to its IP, or if not, whether collaboration agreements are in place.

“IP is often the only thing of value a startup has, and will have, for a long time. Beyond the founding team, they don’t have physical assets – they have their intellectual assets. If it turns out that the company doesn’t actually own the IP it thinks it does, that isn’t great for the investment. This can often be an issue where founders have originated from a PhD studentship or a postdoctoral position, and are perhaps taking some of their academic work into the company – who owns that IP? IP ownership is the main red flag we see and can easily make an investor walk away. The good news is that it’s easy to get it right from the start!”

As for what investors should look for beyond the number of patents a company holds, Holland lists copies of patent applications, employment contracts, collaboration agreements, material transfer agreements, and non-disclosure agreements. Having this information readily accessible makes the process smoother and allows for quicker decisions, ultimately benefiting all parties.

In her final tip for startups, Holland is clear. “Get your IP strategy written down – don’t keep it in your head. Put innovation capture policies and procedures in place to ensure you don’t miss great ideas from your team. And make sure IP clauses in contracts and collaboration agreements are sound before you generate the IP.”

Illtud Dunsford, Cellular Agriculture Ltd

Those in the food-tech space are well aware of the importance of perfecting the scientific processes that make alternative protein production possible. But overlooking the protection of the innovation and ideas that drive those processes can be a costly mistake. Illtud Dunsford, CEO of Cellular Agriculture Ltd, has seen firsthand how patents and trade secrets can make or break a business – and why aligning IP with commercial strategy is essential. His company develops proprietary hollow fiber bioreactors designed specifically for food production, helping the cultivated meat industry scale efficiently.

Having recently undergone a patent evaluation exercise, Dunsford highlights how the process helped Cellular Agriculture Ltd identify strengths and weaknesses in its IP position. “The purpose of any IP portfolio is to support the commercial strategy of the company,” he says. “The exercise was a useful external validation, to scrutinize that we were indeed focusing on what was valuable and that it was consistent with our commercial strategy.” As a manufacturer of equipment used in protein production rather than a food producer itself, this was a particularly reassuring outcome. The valuation also confirmed the market-wide demand for its patented bioreactors and bioprocesses.

Of course, filing patents also involves a delicate balancing act between timing and disclosure. Filing too early risks competitors gaining knowledge a company wants to protect, while filing too late can weaken its market position, undermine investor confidence, and delay regulatory approval. Dunsford describes how Cellular Agriculture has navigated its own approach. “Publishing a patent tells the rest of the world what problem you are trying to solve and the approach you are taking to solve it,” he says. “This may highlight problems to other companies that they were not yet aware of, or they can learn from the core ideas published in the patent to come up with other solutions they may not have managed independently. Deciding whether to file a patent – and what to disclose in the patent – is always a balance of risk, and there is no one answer to what is right or wrong to do.”

Covering every angle

One strategy Dunsford recommends is filing patents simultaneously in several locations to reduce the likelihood of competitors exploiting gaps in coverage. However, it is far from straightforward. Many factors must be weighed, including commercial plans and budget. “What is important when filing any IP is to have an IP strategy that covers consideration of what is being disclosed to competitors,” he says. “For example, are there any alternative technical approaches that may deliver the same benefit? If so, can the patent be broadened in scope to cover achieving the end result by different means?”

The space around a core patent is as important as the patent itself, enabling research efforts to grow and product offerings to evolve with the market

Asking these kinds of questions allows for a more measured approach, Dunsford believes, and contributes to a company’s success at managing its IP portfolio effectively. His overall view? “It is useful to look at IP in terms of the end result rather than just focusing on the specific technology used from the word go, and a decent IP strategy will make this explicit.”

For early-stage food-tech founders, balancing flexibility, protection, and speed to market is crucial to getting strategy right from the beginning. Dunsford’s advice is to formulate a strong keystone patent early – a single novel invention with enough breadth to encourage investment and future research. “The space around this core patent is as important as the patent itself, enabling research efforts to grow and product offerings to evolve with the market. As development progresses, follow-on patents can be filed to protect the key offering and newer inventions for future products.”

Laura Clews, Mathys & Squire

Understanding patents and how to use them effectively may seem a daunting prospect for new companies building an IP strategy, but the foundations are often simpler than many assume. With the right knowledge, support, and resources, portfolios can not only be strengthened but future complications avoided. Part of building that solid foundation is separating myth from reality. One of the most common – and costly – misconceptions in the alt-protein space is that patents don’t apply to food and drink. Laura Clews, Partner and Patent Attorney at Mathys & Squire, says this assumption can leave valuable innovations unprotected.

“Innovative products and processes which arise naturally through R&D are not only patentable but can provide companies with a competitive and commercial advantage when IP protection is secured,“ she says. “In the alt-protein space, that can include a new method of isolating a protein from its natural environment; a genetically modified enzyme or bacteria for producing proteins (as well as the protein formed if it differs structurally from proteins found in nature); and even new uses of proteins in food and drink products.”

It’s not only the proteins themselves that can be patented. Clews notes that, more broadly, it is also possible to obtain patent protection for the end food or drink product, the process of manufacturing it, or even a particular additive – especially if it improves taste, mouthfeel, coloring, or moisture retention. Another potentially profitable use of patents, she adds, is licensing protected processes to other sectors such as pharmaceuticals or beauty, bringing in welcome additional revenue for startups.

Innovative products and processes which arise naturally through R&D are not only patentable but can provide companies with a competitive and commercial advantage when IP protection is secured

Clews also wants to dispel misconceptions around trade secrets, including what their benefits and risks really are. Once it has been established that a trade secret is a better option than a patent – for example, it cannot reasonably be reverse-engineered and few competitors are developing a similar process – it’s important to understand not only what this means for a company’s IP position, but also how to most effectively protect it.

“The relative simplicity of maintaining business information as a trade secret is one of its key benefits,” Clews says. “To qualify as a trade secret you need to demonstrate that the information has been subject to reasonable steps to ensure it remains confidential, such as limiting access, password-protecting documents, and providing staff training.” That protection can also last far longer than a patent, which typically expires after 20 years. “It can continue indefinitely, as long as the information remains secret,” she adds, making trade secrets worthy of careful consideration in an IP strategy.

Risk, remedies, and reality

But what happens if a trade secret is breached – what recourse does a company actually have? “If a third party unlawfully uses a trade secret, there are remedies ranging from the destruction of infringing products to financial compensation,” Clews explains. “However, trade secrets provide no protection if a competitor arrives at the same process independently or through reverse engineering.” For food-tech founders weighing whether to patent or protect through secrecy, these nuances highlight why IP strategy cannot be an afterthought. The right choice depends on a company’s long-term ambitions, market pressures, and tolerance for risk – factors that will only grow in importance as the alternative protein sector becomes more established.

Looking ahead, Clews predicts that the next decade will bring more regulatory pathways, more competitors, and, consequently, more patent filings. For those already in the game, constructing a cohesive IP strategy becomes all the more important as the field widens. “Take some time to consider what aspects of a product or process are key to your business,” she advises. “Not only to help ensure you obtain appropriate IP protection to maintain your market share, but to help the company focus spending on only essential technology, to attract investors, and to prevent other companies from copying your product or process.”

‍