Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Intellectual property strategy in manufacturing generally follows a familiar script: Invent a product, patent it and enforce exclusivity. That model still matters, but an optimized IP strategy in the manufacturing sector comprehensively considers the competitive advantages of its products, services and operations. Leading manufacturers win not merely because of what they make but because of how they make it. And how they make it will often be just as — or more — valuable for advantages in margins, speed and resilience, especially when the “what” has narrow or nonexistent patent protection.
Competitive advantages in modern manufacturing often arise from assets invisible to customers and difficult for competitors to observe directly. Examples include proprietary manufacturing processes, automation logic, production algorithms, AI models for predictive maintenance and quality assurance, data and know-how refined through years of operational learning and analysis, supplier integration knowhow, and system configurations. These assets rarely appear on balance sheets. They are not always patentable. And even if patentable, the value can disappear once a patent discloses what would otherwise be undiscernible from the product alone.
Manufacturers need to understand the respective roles of patents and trade secrets in an IP portfolio, avoiding a product-
centric IP mindset that asks “What can we patent?” and instead embracing a wholistic IP mindset that asks “What advantages do we have, and how can we best protect them?” For many manufacturers, their most valuable IP is not something they could or even should patent but rather is the accumulated knowledge of how to run their operations better than anyone else.
Patents are powerful and provide value when an innovation can be easily reverse-engineered, when exclusivity is needed to justify large capital investments or when business strategy targets value creation or monetization from licensing, financing or M&A. But patents also carry costs that are increasingly unsuitable for many innovations. Patents require public disclosure, which often reveals operational advantages competitors did not previously know existed. Sometimes a patent does not merely fail to protect the advantages — it erodes or eliminates them by providing a roadmap for competitors to design around.
In fast-moving manufacturing environments, long patent timelines can outlast the commercial relevance of the innovation. And many AI-assisted or processbased advances struggle with subject matter eligibility for patents, particularly when the novelty lies in data, tuning or operational execution rather than a discrete invention.
In contrast, trade secret protection is well-suited to many modern manufacturing assets. Unlike patents, trade secrets require no registration. They can last indefinitely so long as the information remains secret. From a legal perspective, courts do not ask whether information was important. They ask first whether the trade secret is discretely identifiable and second whether the company took reasonable measures to protect it. The latter is fact specific and unforgiving, turning on day-to-day operational realities rather than formal policies. As a result, relying on trade secret protection carries its own risks that companies often underestimate.
Trade secrets are not protected by filing or other formalities. They are protected by behavior, systems and governance. In manufacturing environments, maintaining secrecy is harder to accomplish than many executives realize. Risks of exposure arise not just from active misappropriation but also accidental disclosures. Indeed, trade secret leakage rarely occurs through acts of targeted corporate espionage. More often, it happens quietly and unintentionally, such as when employees change jobs and take institutional knowledge with them; when contractors gain access to core processes without adequate controls; when vendors and suppliers access proprietary systems across multiple sites; when digital manufacturing platforms expose sensitive data more broadly than intended; or when knowledge is shared informally with service providers or potential partners without clarity on ownership or confidentiality. Effective trade secret protection depends on enterprise-wide understanding about what constitutes a trade secret, limiting access to only those who need it and controlling that access in practice, not just on paper.
Manufacturing companies face exposure particularly because of high employee mobility, complex third-party relationships and digital access to core operations. As factories become smarter and more connected, the boundary between operational access and IP exposure grows thinner.
The point here is that IP strategy requires more than a one-size-fits-all proposition. Different assets demand different forms of protection. Patents make sense for visible, market-facing innovations that are easily copied. Trade secrets make sense for process logic, AI systems, operational knowhow and other systems that will only be found behind the public veil. Hybrid strategies are appropriate where core concepts are patented while implementation details remain confidential.
Company leadership should actively champion a strategic IP mindset. When IP is treated as an afterthought rather than a strategic priority, gaps inevitably appear. IP strategy increasingly belongs in the boardroom, where company leaders should be asking: What are our most valuable manufacturing trade secrets today? How confident are we that they would remain protected if key personnel left? Are we disclosing process advantages through patents that would be better kept confidential? Do we have assignment and nondisclosure agreements in place with our employees and with customers and suppliers who have access to our systems and processes? Do we have written policies and procedures to protect trade secrets and are we in compliance? Does our IP strategy align with our digital transformation and automation roadmap?
These questions go directly to an IP strategy focused on competitiveness, valuation and long-term resilience. In manufacturing, supply chains are fragile, talent is mobile, and technology cycles are accelerating. The ability to protect operational advantages may determine which manufacturers lead and which merely survive.
To succeed in today’s manufacturing landscape, leaders must safeguard the innovations that set them apart. This means adopting a tailored IP strategy that balances the strengths of both patents and trade secrets, addresses real-world risks and opportunities arising from innovation, and evolves with operational realities. The question is no longer simply “What can we patent?” It’s “How do we protect what helps us stay ahead?”•
__________
Sage is of counsel at Krieg DeVault.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.