Why competitor patent monitoring is critical to your drug development strategy

​
April 15, 2026

Whatever stage you are at in the drug discovery and development process, obtaining IP protection is the best way to protect your investment, both monetary and time.  However, another hugely important aspect to a well-founded IP strategy is monitoring competitor IP.  This allows you to track new patent filings in your area of interest, both from known competitors and also new entrants to the field which could pose a threat to your freedom to operate.

There are several benefits to obtaining information on patent filings within your specialist area. For example, the filings can be analysed in terms of chosen jurisdictions, giving you an idea of what geographical areas are important in your specific market. It is important to choose jurisdictions wisely; there is a balance between wanting to maximise the patent protection coverage whilst being mindful of the associated costs. The decision is time sensitive and so looking at trends from competitors can help you make an informed decision.

Furthermore, patent filing information can be analysed to determine gaps in innovation within a technological domain.  Identifying potential gaps within the patent landscape can offer an exclusive advantage over competitors.

As well as keeping a record of existing live patents, it can also be useful to track the status of patents. Competitor monitoring can provide early insight into which patents are about to lapse, such as instances where an annual renewal fee has not been paid or where a patent is reaching the end of its 20 year term. This may provide unexpected opportunities and increased flexibility in the development of a new compound/formulation.

Most potential investors or acquirers will complete due diligence and identify third party rights that are relevant to your space.  Being aware of relevant third party rights yourself, and having answers prepared for the challenging questions that might follow, should allow you to defend your IP position and, with luck, attract a higher valuation.

Competitor monitoring should be an ongoing project as the competitor IP landscape will constantly evolve.  We can generate a competitor monitoring strategy that suits your current needs, and can implement the monitoring strategy using a custom patent landscaping tool, which will identify newly-published relevant documents and flag these for review.

There are various aspects to competitor IP which should be considered and we can advise on strategies to best deal with these.
‍

FTO Analysis

Freedom to Operate (FTO) is a type of analysis which is used to determine whether you are free to commercially exploit your compound/formulation without infringing another party’s IP right. Carrying out an FTO analysis is often a necessity when it comes to securing funding and future investment.

Knowing when to carry out an FTO analysis can be challenging. Complete it too early in the drug development stage and it may be too broad to provide any useful insight. Conversely, too late and significant resources may have been devoted toa product that cannot launch.

Many companies will do more than one FTO review during drug development, with the scale of the review increasing with time. This can build into a detailed and accurate view of the FTOl and scape, which allows investors and partners see the path to commercialisation and ROI.

Third party observations

Third Party Observations (TPOs)are a useful tool which enable you to file objections on the patentability of a pending patent application which may pose a threat. Whilst it is important to strengthen your own patent protection, it is also crucial to identify vulnerable points in competitors’ patent applications and attempt to steer their protection away from your products.  TPOs are generally a relatively cheap way to try and improve your FTO position, although they do have some downsides in practice.

Oppositions and Litigation

Post-grant proceedings are available before most major patent offices in which it is possible to attack a recently granted patent. There is often a strict deadline for filing an opposition, so monitoring competitor patent cases is key to make sure you can utilise these processes if needed.  Our team has significant experience in this area and can help strategise in such a situation.

Meanwhile, patents are enforced and/or can be attacked in court proceedings.  Litigation is typically costly and time-consuming and many start-up or scale-up companies will seek to avoid this option.  However,through competitor monitoring, the potential for future litigation can be evaluated and steps can be taken early on to put yourself in the best possible position.  The EIP Veriphy team includes experienced court litigators who can advise on best practices.

Licences

Identifying when you need to licence IP from a third party is also important.  Proactively approaching a third-party rights-holder to seek a licence will generally result in more favourable licence terms than if a product is launched and the rights holder notifies you of potential infringement.  In the latter scenario, licence negotiations are typically more adversarial!

Licence negotiations can be complex and we have a team of experienced commercial IP lawyers who can help. Having your own, strong patent portfolio can be a useful bargaining chip in such conversations.

The Latest Thought Leadership pieces in the Content Hub

No items found.
Stay in the Know

The Patent Strategist

Get expert insights and the top patent stories delivered straight to your inbox.

Heading
This is some text inside of a div block.
This is some text inside of a div block.

Latest Insights

Showing 0 of 100
UPC Agreement Is Not EU Law, No Referrals to CJEU
01 September 2025
expert v. Seoul Viosys, UPC_CoA_380/2025 Order of 20 August 2025 (ORD_22147/2025)[1] This order from the UPC Court of Appeal clearly states that the Court of Justice of the EU cannot be asked to...
#
Litigation
​
Unconventional Service: igus v. Whale Technology
29 August 2025
UPC_CFI_318/2025, decision of 5 August 2025 (ORD_34299/2025)[1] In a default judgment issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
#
Litigation
​
A Cloud of Uncertainty: Implications of G 1/23 for Software Companies
29 July 2025
On 2 July 2025, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) issued its landmark decision in case G 1/23 (Solar Cell Sealing Materials and Solar Cell Module), a ruling that has...
#
Consulting
​
Flawed consultation on Standard Essential Patents launched by UK Government
29 July 2025
Earlier this month, the UK Government unveiled its latest consultation on Standard Essential Patents, proposing some "practical steps" which they are considering to "create a more balanced system"...
#
Litigation
​
UPC refuses extension of deadline for review of seizure order after refusal of service
22 July 2025
Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. and China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, Automotive Sub Council Order of 14 July 2025 (ORD_26742/2025 [1]) This article follows up on the UPC...
#
Litigation
​
UPC grants ‘in absentia’ permanent injunction on agricultural tool
21 July 2025
Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. v Spiridonakis Bros GP (UPC_CFI_513/2024 relating to EP1998604) Order of 25 June 2025 (ORD_17812/2025 [1]) This Decision from the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court...
#
Litigation
​
Applying Ocado, the UPC grants a R262 request to access CFI documents
09 July 2025
NJOY Netherlands B.V v Juul Labs International, Inc (UPC_CFI_309/2023) Order issued 9 June 2025 (ORD_27305/2025) [1] The Paris Central Division revoked Juul Lab's patent EP 3 498 115 B1 by decision...
#
Litigation
​
Unified Patent Court: The Impact of Brexit
26 June 2025
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) now has jurisdiction over 18 of the 27 EU states and advertises itself as an EU court but is there any prospect of the UK getting involved in the Unified Patent Court...
#
Consulting
​
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v Cisco Systems GmbH and Cisco Systems, Inc.
25 June 2025
UPC_CFI_58/2024 Following a decision, a successful party has one month to apply for a costs decision (Rule 151). In the relevant case, the main decision (dated 19 February 2025) stated that the...
#
Litigation
​
Provisional Injunction Denied for Small Molecule Kinase Inhibitor
19 June 2025
Zentiva Portugal, LDA v. Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH (UPC_CFI_41/2025 relating to EP1830843) Court of First Instance Order dated 8 May 2025 ORD_18599/2025 [1] Summary The Application for...
#
Litigation
​
Avoiding Added Matter Pitfalls: Mastering Amendments Before the EPO
17 June 2025
"Added matter" objections are a common and often frustrating hurdle in European patent prosecution. The European Patent Office (EPO) takes a particularly strict stance on claim amendments, especially...
#
Patenting
​
The UPC two years on: Withdrawals of actions becoming prominent
09 June 2025
The Unified Patent Court has now been running for two years. To mark the occasion, we have looked at the cases and the decisions over the past two years, and share our thoughts on the current state...
#
Litigation
​
INTA 2026 Essentials: Where to stay, what to see and what to do
03 June 2025
Discover the INTA 2026 Essentials! This comprehensive guide will help you navigate your stay, showcasing the best accommodations, must-see attractions, and exciting activities to enjoy during your visit.
#
Patenting
​
Building a Resilient Quantum Patent Portfolio: Winning the Race to File First
29 May 2025
A key question for those working in a fast-paced and complex industry such as quantum technology is when to patent any technological developments.
#
Consulting
​
AI and Bitstreams at the Core of China’s Patent Update
28 May 2025
On April 30, 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released a draft amendment of the Patent Examination Guidelines (for public comment), proposing further revisions to...
#
Patenting
​