The belief that a patent protects against the theft of ideas is a common misconception.

This is due to the following three key points:

No protection for ideas alone: Patents never protect abstract thoughts or concepts, but only specific, technical implementations.
Patent = Publication: After an 18-month period from the filing date, your invention will be published in detail. Anyone can read and understand it.
Protection of the implementation: The patent merely grants you the right to prevent others from commercially exploiting your invention. In the event of a dispute (in the case of theft), you must actively take legal action

Conclusion: As a patent alone does not prevent theft, your most important protection in practice is your competitive edge. Contact us and together we will focus on the rapid implementation of your idea.

No. A patent attorney is not a traditional lawyer, but a highly specialised expert in technology and the natural sciences.
Legal knowledge is an important part of their training, but does not form the basis of this profession.

Key differences and details at a glance:

The foundation: science and technology
The basic requirement for training as a patent attorney is a completed university degree in a technical or scientific subject (e.g. Physics, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Chemistry or Biology) as well as at least one year’s professional experience in this field.

The training: Technology meets law
Entry into the profession is not via a traditional law degree (e.g. full qualification as a lawyer with the two state examinations), but through a specific qualification comprising a 34-month practical training programme at a patent attorney’s firm or the Patent Office, plus a concurrent law course in ‘Law for Patent Attorneys’ at the FernUniversität in Hagen, and a final state patent attorney examination.

Patent attorneys vs. Traditional attorney: 
Patent attorneys specialise in intellectual property law (patents, trade marks, designs). They represent inventors and companies in the registration of patent applications.
Traditional attorneys are authorised to provide advice in all areas of law. Although patent attorneys are permitted to appear in court in patent disputes, in infringement proceedings they usually work closely with fully qualified lawyers (solicitors), as patent attorneys alone are not fully authorised to represent clients in certain court proceedings.

The legal provisions are laid down in the official Patent Attorneys’ Regulations.

The claim that patenting and publication are incompatible is a common misconception. What matters is the precise timing – and the key to this is what is known as the grace period. 

To preserve your chances of obtaining a patent, your invention only needs to remain secret until an application for a patent has been received by a patent office. In itself, this is a quick process – it can sometimes take just minutes to send a digital patent application to the relevant offices.

However, we need some time beforehand to evaluate your invention and, if necessary, prepare a registration. Once the patent application has been filed, you are free to publish your details without this compromising the novelty of your patent application.

There is no question that before the deadline for the so-called priority application, you must not publish your invention anywhere; it is not only publications or newspaper articles that are ‘dangerous’ in this regard, but also presentations and even posters or leaflets at conferences.

Our practical advice: Please contact us well in advance of any planned publications. This will allow us to work together to identify potential patentable aspects of your research project in good time.

Conclusion: Researchers and companies can certainly publish their results without risk if they have their research work secured by a patent attorney or the Patents & Licences Unit in the form of a patent application prior to publication.

This is an important point, but at modern universities such as the BTU, it is now a misconception. Whilst it is true that patent law is complex, researchers themselves do not have to navigate this bureaucratic process at all. There are specialised technology transfer offices (TTOs) such as the Patents & Licences Department at the BTU, which take care of all the bureaucratic and financial burdens for researchers when they wish to commercialise their invention.

Many researchers fear endless red tape and therefore decide against patenting.
This is a misconception.
The reality is: you do the research, we handle the paperwork.
It is true that a patent application is demanding legal and formal precision. However, this effort should not deter you – because you do not have to bear it yourself. Our Patents & Licences Department is there precisely to take the pressure off you.

No prior knowledge required: you do not need to study patent law. An initial, informal discussion with us about your research findings is entirely sufficient. 
Full administrative support: From the initial invention disclosure through to market analysis and coordination with specialist patent attorneys, we handle the entire process.
Full cost coverage: The University covers all patent and legal fees incurred. You bear no financial risk.
Rapid protection: We ensure streamlined processes behind the scenes. As soon as the patent application is submitted digitally to the Patent Office – which takes just a few minutes – you are immediately free to publish.

Bottom line: We handle the bureaucracy behind the scenes. Simply let us know about your projects well in advance of any planned publications. We’ll clear the way so you can focus on your research with a clear head!

This, too, is a common misconception that does not apply to inventors at universities and in companies.
It is true that the patent process, including the patent attorney’s fees and other charges, often costs several thousand euros over the years.
However, as the inventor, you do not pay a single cent of this. Under the German Employee Inventions Act (ArbNErfG), the university covers all costs and assumes the entire financial risk – and even shares the profits with the inventor if the invention is successful.

If you are conducting research at our university, the institution covers all costs incurred when your invention is utilised. 

Zero financial risk: The university covers all fees payable to the Patent Office and the fees for specialist patent attorneys.
No hidden costs: From the initial search right through to subsequent commercialisation, you will incur no expenses whatsoever.
Generous profit-sharing: If your patent is successfully marketed or licensed, you, as the inventor, are legally entitled to a share of at least 30% of the gross revenue.

Conclusion: The patenting process costs you nothing; in the best-case scenario, it will generate financial returns for you. Let’s simply discuss your projects well in advance of any planned publications.

This, too, is a fundamental misconception, often based on a misunderstanding of scientific practice. Many researchers fear that patents block scientific exchange or even hinder progress.
The opposite is true: patent law explicitly protects research and rewards inventors and their institutions in a unique way. It drives scientific progress and strengthens your research, your reputation and your budget. The concern that patents hinder free science is unfounded.

German and European patent law protects academic exchange through the so-called experimental privilege. This means that, for research purposes, patented knowledge may be used freely and at no cost by anyone. Furthermore, every patent becomes publicly available worldwide after 18 months – thus increasing the freely accessible knowledge of humanity.

A patent therefore does not restrict your scientific freedom, but brings tangible benefits

Reputation & impact: Patents are a mark of quality. They demonstrate that your research is socially and economically relevant – a huge advantage when applying for third-party funding (e.g. from the DFG or the EU)
Real-world applications: Without patent protection, no company will invest in bringing a university discovery (e.g. a new drug) to market. 
Additional funding: A large proportion of the proceeds from successful licences flows back into your department, potentially funding new posts, equipment and projects.
Attractive additional income: As the inventor, you will personally receive a 30% share of the gross revenue.

Conclusion: Patenting and cutting-edge research should go hand in hand. Let us therefore discuss your projects at an early stage before any planned publications. 

That is a classic fallacy. A patent only protects the idea behind a technical solution – the market determines its value. A granted patent is, of course, a great success, but it is no guarantee of financial return. A patent is like a plot of land: it only has value once you build something on it or successfully let it. Without a clear business model, industrial partners or market demand, a patent often remains nothing more than a piece of paper.

This is precisely where we come in to avoid frustration:

Market-oriented assessment: Before filing a patent application, we work with you to analyse the market potential, the competitive landscape and the real needs of industry.
Active exploitation: We do not file patents just to put them in a drawer. Our aim is to actively find licensees or buyers in the business world or to support you in setting up a spin-off.
No risk: As the university bears all the costs, you stand to gain in every case – in terms of reputation, experience and visibility within the industry.

Conclusion: A patent only becomes valuable through the right exploitation strategy. So let’s work together at an early stage to assess whether your idea has the potential to make the leap from the laboratory to the business world!

This is one of the most common and sensitive misunderstandings at universities. Researchers often feel personally or professionally attacked when the technology transfer team decides against filing a patent application. Yet this decision has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific quality or excellence of the research.

We assess solely the commercial viability, never your science. Outstanding, groundbreaking basic research is the foundation of our university.
If we decide against filing a patent application, this is never a judgement on the quality of your work or your scientific achievement. A research result may be scientifically brilliant and highly relevant to the scientific community, yet at the same time unsuitable for a patent – for example, because the market for it is too small or the legal hurdles posed by the Patent Office argue against a registration. As we cover all administrative steps and costs, we must make strategic choices about where the investment makes sense. We therefore assess your invention from a purely economic and legal perspective.

The following points are relevant to our assessment:

Market analysis: Are there companies willing to spend money on this specific solution? Is the market large enough?
Patentability: Is the invention new in a purely legal sense and does it possess the necessary level of inventiveness? Some excellent research achievements simply cannot be patented under the law.
Practicality: Is the technology ready for industrial application, or is the financial risk too high for companies?

Conclusion: Declining to file a patent application means that your results are much better off in a traditional publication than in a patent specification. Let’s have a chat – we’ll advise you impartially and on an equal footing.

This is yet another major misconception about the role of departments of Transfer of Knowledge and Technology at universities. Many researchers believe that these departments are merely administrative bodies that file away invention disclosures like a government agency and passively list the technology on a website. The reality, however, is highly proactive and creative. Pure administration does not bring technology to market. It is not about passive administration, but about active business development, building relationships with industry and supporting start-ups.

We don’t just manage files; we turn ideas into market successes. Simply filing a patent in a database and waiting for a company to come knocking no longer works today. For us, technology transfer is not an administrative task, but active business development and relationship-building on an equal footing.

We accompany you as an active partner throughout the entire innovation process.

Hands-on technology transfer: We translate your scientific discovery into a language the business world understands. We conduct market analyses and specifically identify potential industry partners.
Proactive networking: We approach companies, investors and decision-makers directly. We pitch your technology at trade fairs and commercialisation platforms to negotiate licences or development partnerships.
Start-up support: If your invention forms the basis for your own company, we don’t just manage – we inspire. We support you with business plans, securing funding (such as EXIST) and matchmaking with investors.

Conclusion: We are not an archive, but a bridge to the business world. Let’s talk well in advance of any planned publications so that we can work together to develop the best strategy for your research.

This is an extremely costly misconception. Applying for a patent is not a ‘one-off purchase’, but is more akin to a subscription model with rising prices. Anyone who overlooks this factor will face a tremendous financial surprise over the years. That is why it is so important for us at the BTU to emphasise and make it clear that we not only handle the registration, but also bear the entire long-term cost risk.

A patent incurs continuously rising costs over the years – which we cover entirely for you. Many researchers think that once the fees for the initial application have been paid, everything is sorted. In fact, the initial application is merely the starting point for a long-term financial commitment. Maintaining a patent portfolio over its maximum term of 20 years can cost tens of thousands of euros, depending on the number of countries involved.

The following ongoing costs may apply:

Examination and grant fees: For the entire process from registration through detailed examination to grant by patent offices at home and abroad.

Annual maintenance fees: To maintain the patent, annual fees must be paid to the offices from the third year onwards – these rise sharply from year to year.

International extension: Anyone seeking protection in the USA, Asia or across Europe pays extra for each country, including translations, local patent attorneys and, once again, examination and grant fees.

As an inventor at our university, you do not bear this financial risk. Our Patents & Licences Department not only handles the initial application but also manages and administers the financing for the patent throughout its entire term. The BTU manages and ensures compliance with deadlines and bears all subsequent costs.

Conclusion: A patent is a long-term investment. We take care of the financial groundwork so that you can concentrate fully on your research.  

Although this is the theoretical upper limit in legal terms, in practice it is a misconception. A patent does not automatically remain valid for 20 years once granted. Rather, it remains in force only for as long as the holder is prepared to actively renew it and pay the fees. The law provides for a maximum term of 20 years from the filing date. However, this protection is not guaranteed. To prevent a patent from expiring prematurely, annual maintenance fees must be paid to the patent offices from the third year onwards – and this applies to each country individually. These fees rise dramatically from year to year.

This detail is important for understanding why the Patents & Licences Department regularly conducts strategic reviews of the patent portfolio.
In practice, this approach leads to the following developments:

Regular economic viability assessment: As the university bears all costs, we check at regular intervals whether a patent still yields an economic benefit.

Strategic abandonment: If no industrial partner is found, the technology is overtaken by competitors, or the market changes, we often deliberately allow patents to lapse before the 20-year term expires in order to free up the budget for new, promising inventions.

No disadvantage for your publication: Regardless of how long the patent is ultimately maintained, your research data is permanently protected from the moment of the initial application - which takes just a few minutes - and you can publish immediately without restriction.

Conclusion: A patent only remains in force for as long as it makes economic sense. We invest where your research can have the greatest impact. Let’s discuss your projects at an early stage so that we can devise the optimal protection strategy.

This is a widespread but demonstrably false fallacy. When people think of patents, they often think only of tech giants from Silicon Valley or major car manufacturers. In fact, some of the world’s most economically successful and socially significant patents originate directly from cutting-edge university research.

University inventions often lead to the most valuable technological leaps of all. Whilst companies often only patent evolutionary, minor improvements to existing products, universities are the source of genuine disruption – so-called breakthrough innovation.
Particularly in promising sectors such as Biotechnology, medical technology, artificial intelligence or Materials Science, university patents can often lay the foundations for markets worth billions.

University patents are extremely valuable for the following reasons:

A basis for great scientific and economic achievements:
World-famous examples such as the COVID-19 vaccine from BioNTech (a spin-off from the University of Mainz) or Google’s search technology (developed at Stanford University) demonstrate the enormous market value that university research can unlock.

Exclusive access for industry:
Companies are clamouring for university patents because they grant exclusive access to truly pioneering work that they could never research in their own development departments.

A driver for start-ups:
A strong university patent is the most important asset for a successful spin-off to attract millions in investment from venture capitalists.

Conclusion: Never underestimate the economic potential of your work. What may seem like a small step in the laboratory can be worth millions to industry. Let us assess the economic impact of your results well in advance of your next publication!

This is one of the most serious legal misconceptions in universities and companies. Researchers naturally assume: ‘I invented it, so the patent belongs to me.’ Legally speaking, however, this is incorrect. In patent law, there is a strict distinction between two roles: the inventor and the patent holder. If you, as an employee (e.g. as a research assistant, doctoral candidate or professor), make an invention in the course of your duties, the German Employee Inventions Act (ArbNErfG) applies.

You are legally obliged to officially report your invention to us. The university then has the right to ‘claim’ this invention.

If the University accepts the invention, it becomes the official patent holder. This means that the University is listed in the patent register, bears all costs and holds the economic exploitation rights. Your intellectual authorship however remains inviolable. You will be named as the inventor in the patent specification and recognised worldwide – a valuable addition to your academic CV. As compensation for the transfer of ownership, the law stipulates that, in the event of successful commercialisation, you will receive a share of at least 30% of the gross revenue.

Conclusion: The university assumes the financial risk and ownership, but allows you to share in the success to the fullest extent possible. As the patent application can be completed in minutes following our preparation and does not hinder subsequent publication, you lose no rights, but gain a strong partner in us. 

This is a common misconception that completely fails to recognise the modern innovation landscape. Many researchers believe that one must make a radical choice between the commercial protection offered by a patent and the collaborative approach of open source. In the practice of modern software and hardware development, however, these two concepts are increasingly being successfully combined.

Open source means that source code or blueprints are freely accessible and modifiable. A patent primarily protects an underlying technical invention.

Both worlds can be combined excellently to both disseminate your research widely and secure.

Defensive patent protection: Many open-source projects use patents defensively. By holding a patent, the university prevents copycats from copying the technology for proprietary use, patenting it themselves and legally blocking the original open-source project.

Special open-source licences: Modern licences (such as Apache 2.0 or the GPLv3) contain explicit patent clauses. They allow anyone to use the software freely, but ensure that users cannot bring patent lawsuits against the project.

The dual-licensing model: You can make your software available as open source for academic research, whilst commercial companies purchase a fee-based patent licence for use in closed Systems. This channels research funding back into your department.

Conclusion: Patents safeguard the rules of the game for open-source projects and protect your invention from unfair appropriation. A potentially perfect balance. Contact us well in advance of your planned release – we’ll help you combine open-source freedom and patent protection in a legally secure way!

This is a very significant misconception. Many members of the public believe that a university’s Technology Transfer Office (TTO) is a kind of general, public advisory service for inventions of all kinds. However, it is funded and mandated exclusively to serve the university community.

Our service is exclusively for members of our university – external inventors can find help through specialist networks. With regard to enquiries from creative minds outside the university, our statutory remit is clearly defined as a state-funded university institution. We are supervisors for inventions generated by employees, researchers, doctoral candidates or undergraduates of our university within the scope of their work.

Why we are unfortunately unable to help independent inventors:

Legal framework: The Employee Inventions Act (ArbNErfG) governs the relationship between the university and its employees. This Act does not apply to independent inventors.

Capacity & budget: Our resources and budgets are earmarked for the promotion and safeguarding of cutting-edge university research.

Where independent inventors can find professional help instead:
If you have an idea as a private individual or an external company, there are specialised, publicly funded support services available to you. The first points of contact are the Patent Information Centres (PIZ) of the German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA), the regional Chambers of Industry and Commerce (IHK) or specific start-up and innovation networks in your federal state.

Conclusion: If you are a member of our university, we will support you from the initial application - which takes just a few minutes - right through to market readiness. We are happy to refer external inventors to the regional advisory networks. 

This is a common legal misconception stemming from imprecise wording in the law. Pure program code is excluded – functional software inventions, on the other hand, are fully patentable. The misunderstanding stems from the fact that the law excludes ‘software as such’ (such as pure text code or an accounting program) from patent protection – this area is protected by copyright. However, as soon as your software solves a technical problem using technical means, it is patentable in Europe under the term computer-implemented invention (CII).

When is software patentable?

Control of hardware: Where the software influences physical objects, such as the control of an anti-lock braking system (ABS) in a car, a drone or an industrial machine.

Internal system optimisation: Where the algorithm optimises the functioning of the computer itself (e.g. through faster data compression, more efficient memory management or improved encryption methods).

Artificial Intelligence & AI: The European Patent Office explicitly grants patents on innovative AI architectures and machine learning methods, provided they are used for a specific technical purpose (e.g. medical image analysis or automated quality control).

Conclusion: In modern Computer Science and engineering, software patents are standard. Carry out a software check with us: Contact us well in advance of your planned launch. Together, we will analyse how best to protect your digital innovation!

This is an extremely dangerous misconception in patent law. The fact that a patent has been granted by a patent office such as the DPMA or the EPO does not in any way mean that the patent is set in stone forever. 

Even after it has been granted, a patent can be challenged, restricted or completely invalidated at any time. Many researchers lull themselves into a false sense of security after the official grant of a patent. In practice, however, a patent is more of a ‘disputable or provisional right’ that can be challenged and overturned by third parties at any time. Competitors or affected parties in the industry have legal means to invalidate an unwelcome patent even retrospectively.

The two most common routes of attack:

The opposition procedure: Within a few months of grant, anyone can file an opposition with the patent offices. Competitors often then search worldwide for ‘prior art’ that the examiner may have overlooked, in order to subsequently cast doubt on the novelty of the invention.

The nullity action: Even years later, a nullity action (in Germany before the Federal Patent Court) can still be brought to retroactively invalidate the patent.

This is precisely why it is important to draft the patent application to a high technical standard from the outset. We work with specialist patent attorneys to formulate the claims as legally secure and robust as possible. Should a patent be challenged, the University will evaluate the challenge and prepare a defence strategy.

Conclusion: A patent is only as strong as its defence. Let us plan strategically from the outset and please contact us well in advance of any planned publications.

This is an indisputable legal error. The designation of the inventor is an inalienable personal right. Even if a patent is sold, licensed or transferred, you will remain registered as the inventor for life.

Ownership may change – your honour as an inventor remains forever. Patent law makes a strict distinction between commercial rights (ownership) and intellectual origin (authorship). The right to be named as the inventor is a so-called moral right.

Non-transferable authorship: You cannot sell, give away or waive your status as an inventor. It is legally yours and remains irrevocably linked to your name in all global patent registers for life.

Flexible ownership: If the university sells or licences the patent to a company, only the commercial rights of use change. For your academic CV, the patent remains a permanent, official testament to your innovative strength.

Financial benefit: Even in the event of a sale, the law protects you: you will continue to receive a share of the university’s revenue through inventor’s remuneration.

Conclusion: Your academic achievement remains inextricably linked to your name. Let’s discuss this well in advance of any planned publications to secure your authorship in good time.

This is an extremely common misconception. Many inventors lull themselves into a false sense of security once a patent has been granted, believing that the patent office acts as a sort of ‘patent police’ that scans the global market and automatically punishes infringements. The reality is quite different: the monitoring and enforcement of a patent is 100 per cent the responsibility of the patent holder.

The patent office merely grants the right – any search for copycats must be carried out by you (or us) yourself. A patent office (such as the DPMA or EPO) is purely an examination and registration authority. Once the patent has been granted, the office withdraws completely. It neither checks whether anyone is illegally copying your invention, nor does it send fines or warnings to idea thieves. A patent is, in essence, merely an officially sealed ‘sword’ that you must wield yourself in an emergency.

How enforcement works in practice:

Active monitoring: The market must be continuously monitored. This is done through visits to trade fairs, the analysis of competing products, scientific publications or specialised patent monitoring software.

Civil law route: If a patent infringement is discovered, there is no criminal prosecution by the state. The patent holder must issue a warning to the infringer under private or civil law, can bring an action for an injunction, or claim damages.

Conclusion: A patent does not provide automatic protection – it must be actively defended. Rely on our strong team: Contact us well in advance of your next publication – we will ensure that your idea is not only registered but also effectively defended should the need arise!

This is a serious misconception that fails to do justice to the full potential of the Transfer of Knowledge and Technology department. Many researchers believe they should only get in touch once they have a finished, patentable invention in their hands. In reality, the Transfer of Knowledge and Technology is an agile interface for any form of cooperation between academia and industry.

We support you in every form of exchange with industry – far beyond patents. Whilst patent administration is an important part of our work, it is by no means the only one. Our aim is to bring our university’s knowledge and technologies into society and into practice. To this end, we support you in a wide range of projects that have nothing at all to do with a traditional invention disclosure.

We are your partner in:

Research collaborations: We facilitate contacts with industrial companies, assist in initiating joint projects and review the legal framework for contract research.

Knowledge and concept transfer: Not every innovation is technical. We also support the transfer of concepts, studies, social entrepreneurship ideas or creative outputs from the humanities and social sciences.

Contract management: We negotiate and draft legally sound non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), material transfer agreements (MTAs) or software licence agreements.

Start-up advice (spin-offs): We support the university’s start-up advisory service on all matters relating to intellectual property.

Conclusion: You don’t need to have a finished invention in your drawer to get in touch with us. We are your gateway to the business world. Make use of our expertise: feel free to approach us as early as the planning phase of your projects – we’ll help you put your knowledge into practice!