Table of Contents

• 👉🏻 Introduction

• 💰 Deals done this week

• Today's Deep Dive: Why Patents Are Almost Always a …

  • Focus on What Actually Matters

• Want some 121 time with me?

• 🤖 AI in fundraising

• Interesting Things I Read

• Founders’ Guidelines

• About Raise Like a Pro

👉🏻 Introduction

I die a little inside every time a founder messages me and says “we have patented” something or other.

Not because they've applied for a patent (which does have a degree of value), but because almost certainly they've wasted a tonne of money they don't have, a tonne of time they don't have, to think they've protected something they haven't really protected- without even knowing whether a customer ever wants it.

Obviously there are exceptions (DeepTech and IP-rich businesses - I’m looking at you kid!) but let’s unpick this below.

💰 Deals done this week

• Phasecraft, a Bristol-based quantum algorithms company, raised €29M in Series B co-led by Plural, Playground Global, and Novo Holdings to accelerate breakthroughs in quantum computing and move from theory to real-world applications. (Read)

• Finnish Food Factory, a Kouvola-based contract manufacturer of plant-based dairy alternatives, secured €10M from Taaleri Bioindustry Fund I to scale sustainable oat- and pea-based products for global brands. (Read)

• Allasso, a Geneva-based FinTech platform delivering AI-ready analytics for options trading, raised €2.5M led by Fuel Ventures to modernize trading infrastructure and expand into new asset classes. (Read)

• UNIVITY, a Paris-based SpaceTech startup, secured €31M via France 2030/CNES to develop a satellite constellation for space-based 5G connectivity, complementing terrestrial networks. (Read)

• LIZY, a Brussels-based mobility scale-up, raised €75M (€10M equity + €65M debt) from D’Ieteren, Alychlo, and NewAlpha to expand its circular EV leasing model across Europe. (Read)

Today's Deep Dive: Why Patents Are Almost Always a Waste of Money for Startups

I am known for being quite a direct chap so why change the habit of a lifetime?

Patents are mostly an utter waste of time and money for early-stage startups. In an age where artificial intelligence can replicate most innovations in weeks and where speed-to-market trumps everything else, pouring precious resources into patent portfolios is often strategic suicide.

You're burning money, time, and focus on legal paperwork when you should be building, selling, and scaling. The brutal reality is that patents have become expensive theatre - impressive to wave around in pitch decks but utterly useless when it comes to actual business defence.

The Patent Illusion That's Draining Your Resources

Let me share some eye-watering numbers that should make every founder rethink their IP strategy. Filing a basic utility patent in the US costs around £2,000 in government fees alone for small entities, with legal fees pushing that to £15,000 or more. Want international protection? Multiply that by every jurisdiction - easily hitting £100,000+ for meaningful global coverage.

But here's what really takes the michael: maintenance fees. Your patent isn't a one-time expense. You'll pay £1,000 at 3.5 years, £2,000 at 7.5 years, and £4,000 at 11.5 years just to keep it alive. European patents are even more brutal, with costs escalating to over £2,000 annually by year ten.

The average startup burns through £50,000 to £200,000 on patent portfolios in their first few years. That's money that could have hired developers, fuelled marketing campaigns, or extended your runway by 6-12 months. Instead, it's sitting in some patent lawyer’s pocket while your competition is actually shipping products.

The Distraction Tax: Why Patents Kill Startup Focus

Patents aren't just expensive - they're diabolical time-wasters. Filing a provisional patent might seem quick and cheap at £300, but that's just the gateway drug. The real work begins when you convert to a full application within 12 months, requiring detailed technical specifications, prior art searches, and months of back-and-forth with patent examiners.

I've watched countless founders get sucked into this vortex. They spend weeks perfecting patent applications instead of talking to customers. They hire expensive IP lawyers for strategy sessions instead of hiring engineers. They debate claim language instead of iterating on product-market fit.

The cruel irony? By the time your patent gets granted (averaging 2-3 years), the technology landscape has shifted completely. Your carefully protected innovation might be obsolete, or worse, easily circumvented by clever competitors who spent those same years actually building and improving their products.

The Reality Check: Patents Mean Nothing Without Deep Pockets

There’s a fundamental flaw in the patent fairy tale: owning a patent doesn't protect you; only enforcing it does. And enforcement requires litigation, which costs millions and takes years to resolve.

Patent litigation in the US averages £1-4 million per case. In the UK, even with recent reforms, you're looking at £500,000 to £2 million in total costs. For a startup, that's not a legal fee; it's a death sentence. You also can’t settle. In the US once you’ve kicked off a legal process it has to go to its bitter end.

I speak from experience here. A company I used to run bizdev for owned global patent families around harnessing mobile location data for traffic analysis - solid, well-drafted patents that clearly covered what major players like Google, Apple, Nokia, and Waze were doing millions of times daily. When we sent cease and desist letters, their response was essentially: "So what? Sue us if you can afford it."

They called our bluff, and they were right. Even with airtight patents, we lacked the £10+ million war chest needed to take on Big Tech's legal armies. Our patents became expensive wallpaper; impressive to look at but utterly useless for their intended purpose.

The Big Tech Patent Fortress Strategy

This brings us to the real purpose of patents in today's economy: defensive moats for established players, not offensive weapons for startups. Companies like IBM hold over 5,500 AI patents, Google and Microsoft control thousands more, and the top 10 AI patent holders control nearly 50% of AI-related intellectual property.

This isn't innovation protection; it's market control. Big Tech files broad patents not to protect specific inventions but to create legal minefields that make it nearly impossible for startups to operate without infringing something. They then use patent challenges and litigation threats to wear down smaller competitors who can't afford prolonged legal battles.

Meanwhile, 64% of all patent lawsuits are now filed by patent trolls: entities that exist solely to monetise patents through litigation. Over 52% of companies targeted by patent trolls have revenues under £25 million. These aren't innovation disputes; they're legal shakedowns targeting companies too small to fight back effectively.

Speed and Distribution: The Real Competitive Moats

While you're filing patents, your competitors are capturing customers. In the AI era, where new tools can replicate complex functionality in days rather than months, first-mover advantage and distribution velocity are the only sustainable defences.

Look at the most successful tech companies of the past decade. Did Facebook succeed because of superior patents, or because they executed faster and built better distribution than MySpace? Did Uber dominate because of IP protection, or because they moved aggressively into new markets while competitors were still debating regulatory compliance?

The companies that win aren't those with the strongest patent portfolios; they're those with the strongest customer relationships, the fastest product development cycles, and the most effective sales and marketing engines. These advantages compound over time and are genuinely difficult for competitors to replicate.

When your sales team becomes embedded with customers' decision-making processes, when your product becomes integral to their daily workflows, when switching to a competitor would cause significant operational disruption - that's a real moat. Patents are just expensive paper.

The Execution Imperative

In today's market, execution speed matters more than IP protection. Here's why:

• Network effects scale faster than patent approval. By the time your patent gets granted, successful companies have built user bases that create natural barriers to competition. No patent can replicate the switching costs created by established user relationships and integrations.

• Data moats strengthen daily. Every customer interaction generates proprietary insights that inform better targeting, product development, and customer success strategies. This creates compound advantages that grow stronger over time: unlike patents, which begin depreciating the moment they're filed.

• Brand recognition trumps legal protection. Customers don't care about your patent portfolio; they care about your product's reliability, your company's reputation, and your ability to solve their problems. Building brand equity requires consistent execution and customer success, not legal documentation.

• Market education costs remain yours regardless. Patents don't protect you from the expensive work of educating markets about new product categories. First movers still bear these costs whether they have IP protection or not, but they also capture the positioning benefits of defining the category.

When Patents Actually Matter (The Rare Exceptions)

I'm not completely anti-patent especially when I have some good friends as patent lawyers (Hi Suzanne!). There are specific circumstances where IP protection makes strategic sense:

• Deep tech and life sciences represent the primary exception. When you're developing novel pharmaceuticals, medical devices, or fundamental breakthroughs in materials science, patents provide meaningful protection. The development timelines are measured in years or decades, regulatory approval processes create natural delays, and the technical barriers to replication are substantial.

• Hardware innovations with significant manufacturing requirements can benefit from patent protection, particularly when the protected innovation creates meaningful cost or performance advantages that are difficult to engineer around.

• Platform plays where you're building foundational technology that others will build upon might justify strategic patent filings, particularly if licensing revenue becomes a meaningful business model component.

But even in these cases, patents should complement - never replace - aggressive execution and market development strategies.

The Alternative Strategy: Publish and Execute

Instead of filing expensive patents, consider defensive publication. Academic research papers take a third of the time to produce compared to patent applications and establish prior art that prevents others from patenting your innovations. This approach costs thousands rather than tens of thousands while still providing defensive value.

More importantly, publishing research builds credibility in your field, attracts talent, and demonstrates thought leadership - benefits that patents can't provide. Meanwhile, you're investing saved resources in product development, customer acquisition, and market expansion.

Focus on What Actually Matters

Every pound spent on patent attorneys is a pound not spent on customer development, product iteration, or market expansion. Every hour debating claim language is an hour not spent talking to users, improving products, or building partnerships.

The companies that succeed focus relentlessly on customer value creation, operational efficiency, and market development. They build competitive advantages through superior execution, better customer relationships, and faster product development cycles.

Patents might make you feel secure, but they're security theatre at best and strategic distraction at worst. The real world rewards companies that can identify customer needs faster, build solutions more efficiently, and scale operations more effectively than their competitors.

In the AI age, where technology capabilities are increasingly commoditised and where distribution channels determine winners, spending precious startup resources on patent portfolios is strategic malpractice. Your energy is better invested in building products customers actually want and figuring out how to reach them faster than anyone else can.

The choice is clear: patent or execute. Choose execution every time.

Want some 121 time with me?

I've recently been taking a whole bunch of calls from founders all over the world where either I don’t have the time to work fully on their raise—or just need some specific targeted advice around different areas of their fundraising campaign, be it GTM, market sizing, pitch deck, or whatever.

I've now opened up additional slots, which you can book here.

🤖 AI in fundraising

Fundraising is undeniably time-intensive and often pulls focus from the critical work of building your business. The good news? The landscape of AI tools is rapidly evolving, offering increasingly sophisticated ways to save precious time – whether you're summarising investor requests, meticulously preparing for meetings, or streamlining the management of due diligence materials.

This week, I've been diving into a few platforms that have truly impressed me with their potential to be game-changers for any fundraising effort:

Qubit Capital uses AI-driven data intelligence to help founders identify and prioritize the right investors. The platform maps thesis fit, past deal history, and stage preferences, giving startups a curated investor pipeline with higher conversion potential.

Shipshape.vc lets founders upload their pitch deck and instantly generates a ranked list of relevant VCs. The AI scans across investor portfolios, activity, and sector interests, helping startups cut through noise and target the most aligned backers.

Floww offers an end-to-end fundraising management platform where founders can share live performance dashboards, manage data rooms, and track investor engagement. Its AI layer surfaces the most interested investors and predicts where follow-up will have the most impact.

Interesting Things I Read

India’s $1B+ deep-tech alliance is a game-changer
A collaboration of U.S. and Indian VCs, including Accel, Blume, Celesta, and Premji Invest—announced the India Deep Tech Investment Alliance, pledging over $1 billion in private capital over the next decade to back innovations in AI, materials, and frontier tech. (Read)

AI startups aren’t cheaper; they’re more expensive
At the ET Soonicorns Summit, investors flagged a trend: building AI startups is becoming costlier due to the high infrastructure demands (like GPUs), talent competition, and model complexity. Now, VCs favor founders with dominant distribution and domain expertise over shiny new models. (Read)

Zurich launches a food-tech venture studio
Switzerland’s new Food Founders Studio raised CHF1.2M to spin university food research into startups, starting with tackling off-flavors in plant-based foods. It’s a smart bridge between R&D and commercialization. (Read)

Europe’s serial founders are trying new sectors
Sifted highlights how established European founders, those who previously raised hundreds of millions, are now launching startups in completely different sectors. One example: Peter Carlsson (co-founder of Northvolt) now heads Aris Machina, tackling AI-driven manufacturing. (Read)

Founders’ Guidelines

• When Are You Really Ready to Fundraise – Why traction, growth, and product-market fit matter more than the idea itself when approaching VCs.
  🔗 View post

• Valuation Caps Explained – A practical guide to setting fair SAFE caps, avoiding dilution traps, and negotiating with confidence.
  🔗 View post

• Building Biotechs Beyond Science – Insights on IP, market access, and exit planning, plus a Data Room Readiness Checklist.
  🔗 View post

• Due Diligence on Your VC – How to evaluate investors by talking to portfolio founders, including those from failed startups.
  🔗 View post

• Fundraising Playbook by First Round – A comprehensive guide to Seed through Series C: storytelling, term sheets, and tactics.
  🔗 View guide

About Raise Like a Pro

Raising a funding round isn’t rocket science. It’s not even brain surgery. But it's incredibly time-consuming, HARD and emotionally challenging.

As a founder, your time is better spent building product, finding product-market fit, signing up customers, and building your team. Yet fundraising demands an enormous amount of your attention and energy.

I've witnessed countless founders struggle with this balance. They get stuck in the cycle of endless pitch meetings, confusing feedback, and the dreaded "no's" that seem to pile up without explanation. Even successful companies like Canva, now valued at $25.5 billion, started with their CEO Melanie Perkins hearing "no" over 100 times before getting that crucial first "yes."

My promise to you

Every piece of advice in this newsletter comes from actual experience: deals I've closed, terms I've negotiated, and strategies I've refined through real-world application.

I'm not here to give you startup platitudes or generic advice. Instead, you'll get practical, actionable tactics that you can implement immediately in your fundraising journey. This is the playbook I use each and every day to help founders all over the world raise money from investors all over the world.

The type of things we have and will continue to cover:

• The actual processes I use to close deals.

• Step-by-step morning routines for effective fundraising.

• Real email templates that get responses.

• Meeting scripts that convert to term sheets.

• Pipeline management techniques that close deals.

• The stuff you really need to know so you don’t get screwed by investors.

The goal? To help you raise money faster, at better valuations, while protecting your interests and your time.

– David

Raise like a Pro is what David Levine does every single day though this business Glenluna Ventures. An exited founder, he raises money each and every day for founders all over the world from investors all over the world.