Leading the way in life sciences IP: Q&A with Devanand Crease

How does this reflect Keltie’s strategic, commercially focused approach to IP?

 

It demonstrates our commitment to providing clients with practical, business-oriented IP solutions that will underpin commercial success. Our focus on really understanding clients' business objectives and tailoring our strategies accordingly is evidently gaining traction in a competitive global marketplace. This kind of approach cannot be replaced by commoditised or automated services; it requires people to interact and share information and to use that knowledge constructively to provide novel solutions. As every client is unique, I believe that template advice does not serve the client in the long run. Automation of professional advice drags companies into the indistinguishable centre ground, it will be the outliers that are disruptors and who take advantage of the lack of meaningful competition.  

 

With a PhD in molecular and developmental biology, you bridge science and legal strategy. How does this scientific grounding influence the way you frame patent claims and advise R&D-led clients?

 

My scientific grounding enables me to communicate with clients on a very productive level. We talk about the science and the commercial expression of that in the products and services that will result from it. The IP strategy underpins the commercial strategy; the claims support the development pathway. One has to be a bit forensic in teasing out the long-term view, it’s really easy to obsess over how great the science is and lose sight of the bigger picture. I see this happen a lot when doing due diligence for investors, the science shines through in the IP but commercial imperative is lost. This can cause problems with valuation of the IP.

 

Which life sciences technologies are creating the most complex IP challenges today?

 

The life sciences are rapidly evolving, if you forgive the pun, and the innovations they produce often push the boundaries of existing IP frameworks, requiring novel approaches to patent protection. Biology is a ‘big data’ science and increasingly requires the use of AI and machine learning to advance innovations. Our life science team has become adept at handling advanced computational approaches as much as complex systems biology and biochemistry. This has to be considered alongside the challenges presented by global legal systems on patent eligibility. Once again, a unique focus allows us to anticipate future challenges and ensure the best coverage possible for our clients.

 

Why are these technologies difficult to protect from a patent strategy perspective?

 

Biology and pharmaceutical technologies can be particularly difficult to protect because they involve complex interdisciplinary innovations. The rapid pace of advancements in these fields means that patent strategies must be continuously adapted to keep up with new developments in technology and case law to ensure comprehensive protection that lasts for decades.

 

Looking ahead, what will define a successful IP strategy in life sciences over the next five years?

 

Looking ahead, any successful IP strategy over the next five years will be defined by adaptability and foresight. It will be crucial to anticipate future trends and innovations and develop proactive patent strategies that provide robust protection while accommodating the evolving landscape of patent law, technological advancement and commercial trends.

 

As life sciences and biology-driven technologies continue to advance at a pace, the demands on IP strategy are set to increase. From managing complex data-driven innovation to navigating evolving global patent frameworks, success will depend on foresight, adaptability and sector understanding. For the Life Sciences team, the key remains a personal approach that connects scientific insight with commercial reality.