Funding Intelligence

Do you really need a full freedom-to-operate analysis before funding? It depends entirely on who you're asking for money and where you are in your journey.

An SME and a university win a collaborative grant, generate valuable IP — and then discover they have fundamentally different expectations about who owns what.

There's an assumption that patents are the default for IP protection in grant applications. But for AI/ML, process chemistry, and data-driven products, patents may not be your best option.

If you're using ChatGPT, GitHub Copilot, or AI platforms in your R&D, you have IP questions that didn't exist three years ago. The decisions you make now will affect your IP position for years.

When you join a Horizon Europe consortium, there's one clause in particular that UK SMEs should negotiate every time: background IP access rights.

If you’re building a digital health product for the NHS and you’ve asked a consultancy what ISO 27001 certification costs, you’ve probably been quoted somewhere between £120k–200k. That number is real — but it’s not what compliance has to cost.

Every healthtech founder is told that NHS sales cycles are long. Very few are told what happens during those 16–18 months from first meaningful conversation to purchase order — or how to stay alive financially while you wait.

Open any early-stage healthtech grant application and you’ll find a budget that’s 80% technical R&D. What you won’t find is a single line item for the operational work that determines whether the project produces a company or just a report.

Do you really need a full freedom-to-operate analysis before funding? The short answer is: it depends entirely on who you're asking for money.