According to Sifted, Europe’s obsession with intellectual property is creating a “cult of IP” that’s holding back science entrepreneurship and real-world impact. Investment firm Wilbe reports that half their 2025 investments were made before any patent applications were filed, directly challenging conventional startup wisdom. The piece highlights companies like Proxima Fusion, U-ploid Bio, and Milvus Advanced that secured multiple funding rounds without holding foundational patents initially. Universities file tens of thousands of patents annually across Europe, yet few translate into successful ventures. The article argues that patents often become redundant by licensing time as science advances beyond the original filing.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
The Patent Illusion
Here’s the thing about patents in science startups: they’re treated like golden tickets when they’re really just expensive paper shields. Investors love them because they provide that false sense of security – something tangible to point at and say “see, we own this.” But look at the actual outcomes. Universities are filing thousands of patents every year across Europe, and what’s the commercial success rate? Basically, not great.
And the cost isn’t just in missed opportunities. Technology transfer offices are spending fortunes just keeping these patents alive – renewal fees, legal costs, the whole bureaucracy. That’s money that could actually be going to scientists doing the real work. I mean, think about it: if patents were truly valuable, wouldn’t we see way more successful spinouts?
What Actually Builds Science Companies
So if patents aren’t the magic ingredient, what is? According to the Wilbe team, it comes down to three things: market validation, clear mission, and the right team. They’re seeing that exceptional founders with entrepreneurial instinct outperform those motivated by scientific pride alone. And honestly, that makes complete sense.
When you’ve got a scientist who understands the problem they’re solving and has the grit to chase it, the valuable IP will naturally follow. But starting with a patent and trying to find a market? That’s basically building a company in search of a problem. The examples they cite – fusion energy, IVF therapeutics, nanomaterials – these aren’t simple problems that a single patent can solve. They require ongoing discovery and adaptation.
The Human Element Behind the Science
This is where it gets really interesting. Wilbe says they only invest in about 1% of the scientists they meet. That’s incredibly selective, but it reflects their belief that the human element matters more than the paperwork. Scientists aren’t just data producers – they need empathy, judgment, and leadership skills to build companies.
And here’s the kicker: good scientists don’t stop discovering after filing a patent. The know-how advances, hypotheses get refined, sometimes they pivot entirely. So that patent you spent so much time and money on? It might be obsolete before it even becomes useful. The real value is in the people and their ability to keep innovating, not in some static legal document.
A Quiet Revolution in Science Investing
What we’re seeing here is a quiet revolution in how science ventures get funded and built. Firms like Wilbe are betting that market-focused, founder-driven approaches will outperform the traditional patent-first model. And the early evidence from their portfolio suggests they might be right.
This could have huge implications for Europe’s startup ecosystem. If more investors shift their focus from IP protection to founder quality and market fit, we might finally see more science ventures achieving real scale and impact. The old model clearly isn’t working – maybe it’s time for a new approach that actually values the scientists behind the science.
