San Diego is one of the most active startup ecosystems in biotechnology, life sciences, and medical devices. While innovation is strong, early intellectual property (IP) decisions are often made under time pressure, budget constraints, or incomplete information.

Many of the IP issues we see at the growth stage can be traced back to common, avoidable mistakes made early on. Understanding these pitfalls can help startups protect their innovation more effectively and avoid costly corrections later.

One of the most common misconceptions is that the objective is simply to “get a patent on file.”

In reality, early patent filings should be part of a broader strategy that considers:

• How the product may evolve

• What investors will evaluate

• How competitors might design around the claims

Filing without a plan often leads to patents that exist—but don’t meaningfully protect the business.

Provisional applications can be useful tools, but they are often misunderstood.

Common issues include:

• Provisionals that lack sufficient technical detail

• Treating a provisional as a one-year placeholder without strategy

• Filing multiple disconnected provisionals without a roadmap

A provisional should support future non-provisional filings—not create uncertainty or false confidence.

Startups are often focused on product development, fundraising, and hiring—IP planning gets pushed aside.

This can lead to:

• Public disclosures before filing

• Lost priority opportunities

• Limited protection once competitors enter the space

Timing matters, especially in San Diego’s competitive biotech and medical device environment.

At the opposite extreme, some startups overspend on IP before product direction is clear.

This often shows up as:

• Filing patents on early prototypes that are later abandoned

• Expanding portfolios without clear business justification

• Running down runway without proportional IP value

Effective IP strategy balances protection with flexibility and cost control.

Early patent filings are often prepared before the product is fully defined. If they are not revisited, startups may find that:

• Claims no longer align with the actual product

• Key features are unprotected

• The portfolio is difficult to explain to investors

Reassessment at the right time can prevent misalignment from becoming permanent.

Many startups delay trademark strategy until a product is ready to launch.

This can result in:

• Brand conflicts discovered late

• Forced name changes

• Lost momentum at commercialization

Trademarks are part of IP strategy and should be considered earlier than many founders expect.

Investors may not expect a large patent portfolio at the earliest stages—but they do expect coherent thinking.

Common fundraising-related IP issues include:

• Inability to clearly explain what is protected

• Patents that do not support differentiation

• Gaps that raise diligence questions

IP should support the fundraising narrative, not complicate it.

Many startups continue with early IP decisions simply because “that’s how it started.”

Reevaluation is especially important after:

• A seed or Series A round

• A pivot or change in product direction

• New competitive entrants

This is often when startups begin transitioning into the growth stage.

Avoiding common IP mistakes does not require perfection—it requires intentional planning and periodic reassessment.

For San Diego startups, the most effective IP strategies:

• Scale with the company

• Align with product and funding milestones

• Preserve flexibility while protecting core innovation