In 2020, this section was further explored. Different patent sources (ESP@CENET, PATENTSCOPE) were analyzed to confirm the “freedom to operate”. There was no product on the market based on these industrial property rights. Therefore, in our first analysis, we foresaw full “freedom to operate”.
Software is not patentable at EU level, but there were certain aspects related to algorithms and know-how that could be protected beyond intellectual property, and this was an aspect that was investigated during 2020. In our case, it was decided not to pursue the patent process further.
It is possible that some issues related to the calibration for the adaptation of each exercise or to the evolution of the difficulty of the exercise based on the patient’s capabilities, with consequent adaptation to the patient’s condition, could have been patented. However, there were some cons that made us not to follow that path. First, some of what was patentable had been previously published/communicated, at different levels of depth. Secondly, we did not want that, with the patent process, some relevant aspects such as dosing algorithms would be made fully public. Finally, we were concerned about the patenting process itself and the protection in other continents, in particular aspects such as the costs associated with patenting and litigation, as well as the very scalable nature of the service we offer (software-based) and the possibility of replicating our service from other countries in other continents.
This is why we decided not to patent and to keep these key issues of the company as a trade secret. In this way, our main barrier to entry against competitors comes from the specificity of the sector we are in, from our roadmap of trials and results in clinical trials, and from our traction with clients.