• • • IOT • • •
PATENTING IOT SYSTEMS IN 2026: A GUIDE FOR ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS
BY CHRISTOPHER SMITH, PARTNER, REDDIE & GROSE
W
hether we’re talking smart grids, industrial automation, digital health, autonomous logistics, or building-scale
energy optimisation, the Internet of Things (IoT) now underpins modern infrastructure. As electrical engineers push innovation further and continue to design increasingly intelligent and interconnected systems, securing effective patent protection for inventions that span devices, networks, and the cloud has become critical to maximising commercial potential.
What Makes an IoT Invention patentable?
In many cases an internet-connected object is not itself patentable because it is a straightforward combination of existing technologies, such as network connectivity, sensors, actuators and processors. Patent offices need to see evidence of a specific technical effect such as reduced latency, lower power consumption, or improved reliability. Simply adding connectivity to a known device rarely qualifies.
Much of IoT’s growth has largely been driven by incremental improvements in underlying technologies. These advances may be patentable but are usually considered independently of their use in IoT devices. In Europe in particular, applicants have greater success when they define how an IoT device interacts within a broader ecosystem, whether with servers, hubs, or other devices, rather than describing it in isolation.
Favourable claim structures Patent claims along these lines are more readily patentable: • “A system comprising a server and a plurality of internet-connected devices, wherein the server is configured to…and the plurality of internet- connected devices are configured to…”
• “A method for a server and one or more internet- connected devices, the method comprising: performing first operations by the server; and performing second operations by the one or more internet-connected devices”
These structures emphasise system level technical contributions, making the invention more likely to satisfy inventive step and technical effect requirements. However, although system-level claims may be easier to obtain, they can be harder to enforce.
When different parties operate different components, for example one company runs a cloud server while another deploys the connected devices, no single entity performs all elements of the claim. Under UK law, this can prevent proving direct infringement.
All is not lost because, under English law, one of the parties may be liable for ‘indirect infringement’ of a patent if it is shown they have supplied a ‘means relating to an essential element of the invention’, or the parties can be established as ‘joint tortfeasors’ and, therefore, separately liable for patent infringement. Even so, these legal routes introduce additional complexity and uncertainty.
Separate claims for
separate elements To improve enforceability, we often draft separate claims for each major component of the IoT system. For example: “A server for interacting with an internet- connected device, the server configured to: receive
24 ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING • APRIL 2026
sensor data from an internet-connected device, process the sensor data and send a control signal to the internet-connected device based on a result of the processing of the sensor data.” “An internet-connected device configured to: collect sensor data, send the sensor data to a server, receive a control signal from the server and collect sensor data in a different manner based on the control signal.” Sometimes we can’t protect every part of the system separately. In the example above, perhaps the invention really only exists in the processing of the data, and so the claimed internet-connected device is no different to an existing internet- connected device that communicates with any other server. In that case only the server claim would be patentable. But the patent owner still has a patent that is easier to enforce than one that specifies a system comprising both the server and the internet-connected device.
Some IoT inventions cannot be divided cleanly. If an inventive step emerges only through interactions between components, or if a key element relates to data processing that lacks a clear physical effect, examiners may disregard those features as non-technical. In such cases, including all system elements in a single claim may be the only way to demonstrate a real-world technical contribution.
In short, there is no single ‘best’ way to patent IoT innovations. The optimal approach depends on the technical contribution, how the system components interact, and how the product will be commercialised. Electrical engineers should seek outside expertise and view patent drafting as part of the design process to ensure that inventions are documented from multiple angles so that effective protection remains possible, even as requirements shift during examination.
https://www.reddie.co.uk
electricalengineeringmagazine.co.uk
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40
