Gone are the days when one used to sit for hours in the library to find the right set of books before conducting research followed by endless experiments in a laboratory or on a desktop computer. The Internet changed research forever, putting powerful investigative tools, browsers and advanced search engines at one’s disposal, eliminating the need for all those books or library time But all that sounds like the Stone Age now. In fact, today’s young inventors probably find that hard to imagine since Artificial Intelligence (AI), especially Gen-AI[1], has made access to digital information, reasoned answers, and even new solutions available at one’s fingertips. Or should I say a sound away with voice inputs?
Gen-AI[2] acts like a trustworthy junior Research Assistant for a Research Scientist, performing incredible groundwork, identifying the right parameters for test cases and then running those test cases. It doesn’t leave things there, Gen-AI goes further to help with sound boarding ideas and suggests pros and cons so one can make better informed decisions. This means that inventors and scientists can arrive at their experiments’ results faster and earlier. Looking specifically to the IP world for an example, they can conduct prior art search and analysis to assess the patent worthiness of an invention before spending big bucks with a Patent Attorney.
All in all, Gen-AI has transformed Research and Development (R&D) by significantly shortening[3] the innovation cycle. This also means that more inventions can be realized in a short amount of time, leading to a burst of patent applications. These compressed innovation cycles are catalyzing unprecedented portfolio strategy challenges. With innovation accelerating at such a high pace, there is a need to review the patenting strategy and make changes to keep up with the acceleration. Having a huge patent portfolio may not be a good sign anymore because although one will own enforceable rights upon grant, many of the patents may not be strategically relevant by the time one seeks to establish infringement or enforcement.
This brings us to the question – While 20 years is the legal life of a patent as per patenting authorities, what exactly is the effective life? The time for which a patent (or patent portfolio) remains aligned with a company’s future business and technology strategy is the most useful part of life, not its whole legal life. Let me call this “Strategic Half-Life.”
The acceleration of technological turnover raises the possibility that Strategic Half-Life is shrinking. While AI is one of the latest contributors, there have been others like technology convergence, globalized innovation ecosystems (including Asia) and faster product and business model evolution.
The important reason behind the shrinkage is not merely more innovation; it is rapid technological turnover within the innovation landscape. That creates the central question behind Strategic Half-Life: does a patent portfolio remain aligned with the company’s direction, even when its patents remain legally alive but not necessarily effective?
Let us review an example where patent rights outlived, and potentially diverged from, the product architecture that originally motivated them.
Apple[4] commercialized force-sensitive touch in the iPhone through 3D Touch, which enabled devices to detect the amount of force applied to the screen and use that force as an input. Apple subsequently shifted its mainstream iPhone interaction model from pressure-sensitive 3D Touch toward Haptic Touch, which relies on touch-and-hold interaction rather than pressure as the primary trigger. Apple described Haptic Touch as deeply integrated across iOS 13 in the iPhone 11.
Yet patents directed to force-sensitive touch remained alive. For example, US 10,139,975 B2, “Pressure compensation for force-sensitive touch screen,” has a September 2016 priority date and is currently listed as active; its claims concern compensating force measurements for pressure changes in a force-sensitive touchscreen. US 11,036,327 B2, “3D touch,” was filed in December 2019, granted in June 2021, and is also currently listed as active. It claims a force-sensing architecture using pressure-decay and gap-distance sensing.
The example illustrates a potential mismatch between legal life and Strategic Half-Life: an invention can remain legally enforceable after the product architecture around which it was developed has ceased to be central to the company’s mainstream product strategy. That does not necessarily make the invention technologically obsolete. But a patent can become strategically stale when considered in isolation from the company’s evolving technology and product roadmap.
Turning to the automobile sector, we see a similar trend in the industry’s fast-moving shift towards electrification.
Ford’s own disclosures show that between 2011[5] and 2018[6], its global pool of active patents and pending applications grew substantially – from approximately 17,660 to 60,000 – while the reported average age of patents in its active portfolio fell from just under 5.5 years to just over 4.5 years. The evidence shows portfolio expansion accompanied by a modest reduction in portfolio age. The expansion is mostly attributed to filing patent applications[7] in EVs, batteries, software, connectivity and autonomous driving, and the change in age highlights the dynamic created by modern innovation coming out faster than the older technologies age out. The data shows Ford’s ability to keep their portfolio agile and reflect where the industry is going instead of where the industry has been.
The usual risk isn’t that patents become legally old. The risk is that the company’s strategic direction can change faster than the portfolio is refreshed or rebalanced.
Traditional metrics like number of patents and geographic footprints in the portfolio are swiftly getting replaced with strategic aspects of existing technology gaps, portfolio evolution along with business, areas not worth patenting anymore, existing patents from the portfolio that are no longer required, portfolio readiness considering product roadmap, etc.
Rather than maximizing portfolio size, realigning patent portfolios with emerging technologies and business priorities is key and IBM is another example that demonstrates it successfully.
After 29 consecutive years as the U.S. patent leader, IBM[8] decided to stop pursuing patent-count leadership in 2020 and adopt a more selective approach to patenting, reflecting its strategic focus on hybrid cloud and AI. IBM illustrates that a successful technology company may deliberately move away from maximizing patent volume in favor of concentrating IP resources on strategic technology areas.
In a LexisNexis[9] analysis of patent families active in 2020, IBM had reduced the size of that tracked cohort by nearly 38% by 2025 – the highest pruning rate among the companies studied. This is a case of “selective patenting / strategic pruning,” rather than a “shrinking patent portfolio.”
After reviewing the above examples from different technology sectors, one thing is clear – the real question isn’t whether your patents will last 20 years – it’s whether they’ll remain strategically relevant for even the next five or not and what’s the best portfolio strategy to create and protect value within the timeframe of today and tomorrow’s innovation lifecycle.
[1] Generative AI and news report 2025: How people think about AI’s role in journalism and society | Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism
[2] Generative AI and academic scientists in US universities: Perception, experience, and adoption intentions – PMC
[3] AI-native workforce: Future of work
[4] Tracking the force of 3D Touch events | Apple Developer Documentation
[8] IBM is no longer the U.S. patent leader – IBM Research
[9] Software Companies That Refine Portfolios With Patent Pruning
