By Dr. Dan Wadsworth

With ADSTAR 2026 (Adelaide, 4 – 6 August 2026) fast approaching, I prepare to join Australia’s leading defence innovators in Adelaide in early August and thought it appropriate to reflect on some of the intellectual property issues that can arise as new defence technologies move from an idea, to a prototype, and ultimately towards operational capability.

Key points

• Defence innovation creates intellectual assets as well as technical capability.
• Ownership, access and commercialisation rights are best considered before collaboration and procurement arrangements are settled.
• Sovereign capability can depend on who controls the intellectual property needed to manufacture, modify, sustain, export and further develop a technology.
• The intellectual property of greatest value may sit below the visible product layer, including in software, methods, processes, data and integration know-how.
• Patent information can also provide useful technical and competitive intelligence, not merely legal rights.

Defence innovation is accelerating. There are demonstrations to prepare, funding opportunities to pursue, collaborators to bring together and Defence customers to engage. In that environment, intellectual property can feel like something to deal with later, once the technology is further developed or a commercial opportunity becomes more certain.

For IP-rich businesses, one of the key issues is the value of the IP being transferred, licensed or otherwise made available offshore.

The difficulty is that, by then, some of the most important decisions may already have been made.

The technology is only part of the story…

Having worked with technology companies across engineering, aerospace, autonomy, software and advanced manufacturing, one observation continues to stand out. Organisations generally spend considerable time thinking about what they are building, but often less time considering the intellectual property position that will underpin the long-term value of what they have built.

That is understandable. The product, platform or prototype is visible. Ownership rights, licence terms, confidentiality arrangements and future commercialisation pathways are less visible, particularly during the early stages of a project.

But those less visible matters may ultimately determine who can use the technology, who can improve it, where it can be sold and who captures its enduring value.

Defence innovation creates more than technology

In my earlier article, Intellectual Property in Defence, I discussed how intellectual property issues often become most significant when multiple stakeholders come together to solve a complex problem.

Defence innovation rarely occurs in isolation. Technology developers routinely work with Defence, prime contractors, universities, research organisations and specialist subcontractors. These relationships can accelerate development and open important commercial pathways.

They can also create difficult questions if the intellectual property position is not addressed early.

• Who owns improvements made during the project?
• Who owns, or can use, test data and validation results?
• Who can commercialise the resulting technology outside the immediate program?
• What rights continue after the project or funding arrangement ends?

These questions may be less exciting than the technology itself. However, they can have a far greater effect on the long-term value of the project.

International defence programs provide many reminders that uncertainty around intellectual property can become a commercial and operational problem. The better time to work through that uncertainty is generally before positions harden, contributions become difficult to separate and the parties have developed different expectations about the future.

Sovereign capability… and the IP behind it

The defence sector frequently speaks of sovereign capability, sovereign manufacturing and sovereign industrial capacity.

Increasingly, a related concept is becoming just as important: sovereign intellectual property.

Physical assets can often be acquired, integrated or replaced through global supply chains. The intellectual property that enables a capability is different. It may remain under the control of the party that owns the relevant patents, software, designs, technical information, data or confidential know-how.

In practical terms, that control may determine who can manufacture, modify, repair, sustain, export or further develop the technology.

For Australian innovators, sovereign IP does not necessarily mean avoiding international collaboration or insisting upon sole ownership of everything created. That may be unrealistic and, in some projects, counterproductive.

Rather, the objective is to make sure that Australian organisations retain meaningful ownership, access rights and commercial leverage in the technologies they create. The appropriate position will depend upon the project, the contributions of the parties, the customer’s requirements and the intended commercial pathway.

Managed well, sovereign IP can support domestic manufacturing, local sustainment, export opportunities and Australia’s position within international defence partnerships. Managed poorly, an Australian business may contribute valuable innovation yet retain only limited ability to use that innovation in later programs or markets.

The sovereign capability conversation should therefore extend beyond where a capability is developed or manufactured. It should also ask who controls the intellectual assets that make the capability possible.

Look below the product layer…

A common misconception is that intellectual property protection becomes relevant only once a finished product exists. In reality, some of the most valuable innovation may sit well below the visible product layer.

The real competitive advantage might reside in:

• a control algorithm or software workflow;
• a sensor-fusion or signal-processing technique;
• a manufacturing or assembly process;
• a communications architecture;
• a calibration methodology;
• a test, simulation or validation process; or
• a novel way of integrating otherwise known components.

These are often the innovations that make a system perform better, cost less, scale more easily or operate more reliably. They can also create genuine barriers to entry.

The first step in developing a meaningful IP strategy is therefore not simply to ask, “Can we patent the product?” It is to identify where the technical and commercial advantage actually resides, and then determine which combination of patents, registered designs, copyright, confidentiality, contracts and internal controls best protects that advantage.

Patent databases are not just for patent attorneys

In a ‘Dark’ Knight and contrail suppression, I explored how patent databases can offer surprisingly useful insight into emerging technical developments in the aerospace and defence sectors.

Patent publications are often treated only as legal documents. They are also technical documents, and collectively they can provide a valuable source of competitive intelligence.

A considered review of patent activity may help identify:

• emerging technical directions;
• competitor development trends;
• fields attracting sustained investment;
• potential collaborators or technology partners; and
• rights that may influence freedom to operate or future market entry.

Patent information will never provide the complete picture. Some innovations are retained as confidential know-how, and a patent publication does not necessarily establish that a technology is commercially successful. Even so, patent intelligence can add a useful layer of visibility beyond announcements, capability statements and media coverage.

The opportunity for Australian defence innovators

Australia’s defence innovation ecosystem continues to mature. SMEs are developing highly specialised technologies across autonomy, sensing, electronics, software, advanced manufacturing and aerospace systems.

Much of that technology is genuinely world class.

The challenge is to ensure that the commercial value created by those innovations remains capable of being captured, licensed, leveraged and exported.

In my experience, the strongest outcomes tend to arise where IP strategy develops alongside the technology and the commercial plan. It should not sit in a separate workstream that begins only after the prototype is complete, the collaboration agreement is signed or the first public demonstration has occurred.

The bottom line

Defence innovation creates more than capability. It creates intellectual assets.

In an environment increasingly focused on sovereign capability, identifying, protecting and leveraging sovereign IP may be just as important as developing the underlying technology. Whether the objective is to preserve freedom to operate, secure a competitive advantage, enable exports or support long-term sustainment, ownership and control of intellectual property will often determine where the enduring value of innovation resides.

The question is not simply whether an organisation has developed something valuable. It is whether its intellectual property position allows it to retain and use that value when the next opportunity arrives.

Let’s continue the conversation at ADSTAR…

I will be attending ADSTAR in Adelaide in early August and would welcome the opportunity to connect with businesses, researchers and industry participants working across the defence sectors.

Whether you are developing new technology, entering a collaborative project, considering freedom-to-operate risk or seeking to understand how IP can support a broader commercial objective, I would be pleased to discuss your innovation journey.

If you are attending ADSTAR and would like to catch up, please feel free to reach out.

Dr Dan Wadsworth
Patent Attorney | Principal