Space programmes must be at the peak of their game when it comes to developing the technology that will shoot people or machines into space. Missions like Artemis II are built on thousands of these technological advancements.
But how exactly do the innovations created for missions like Artemis II come back down to earth and be applied to everyday industry? And what role does intellectual property play in making that transfer possible?
In this Q&A, Dan Thornton, Partner at intellectual property specialists Mewburn Ellis, explains how space exploration drives breakthroughs on Earth, and why the patents behind programmes like Artemis II could shape the future of sectors from healthcare to clean energy.
Space exploration has produced technologies we use in everyday life. What is it about the conditions of space programmes that makes them ideal for wider innovation?
Space programmes like those led by NASA create a uniquely demanding innovation environment. This is particularly true for manned missions like Artemis II. For manned missions, failure is not an option. For other missions, failure is an extremely expensive option.
Contrasting with other disciplines, for example, automotive engineers know that the car will be serviced yearly, and that some parts are easily replaceable. Those parts are not expected to last the lifetime of the vehicle. Potential failure modes depend on the driver, over whom the designers have very little control. Drivers will push a vehicle into failure in ways not considered during a design process. One cannot design for extremely unlikely events. Generally speaking, a level of imperfection, when balanced with costs, is reasonable.
When travelling to space, and staying there, the balance is tipped strongly in favour of perfection. The costs associated with fixing or changing hardware in space are extreme, and are (or would be) a huge technical challenge. Faults in space often spell disaster, often for expensive hardware and very occasionally for people.
These risks mean that engineers working for the space environment are forced to solve problems under extreme requirements – environmental, performance, and reliability. Very low tolerances for failure and the extreme physical conditions of the launch and space environments practically ensure deep engineering thought. Innovation tends to follow.
At the same time, space programmes like those of NASA are driven by science and exploration. They pursue solutions to problems that may not yet have a commercial incentive, or at least not a currently viable one. Only later may some of those solutions find a commercial home.
Finally, space ecosystems are often interdisciplinary and always complex; collaboration is often essential. Those collaborations often see a variety of technical specialists from across industry, academia, and government. The cross-pollination of ideas is inevitable, and produces more innovation, and innovations with broad applicability.
How are patents emerging from missions like Artemis II driving breakthroughs in other sectors, and are there any specific areas where you expect this to grow/play out?
All patents and applications act as structured knowledge transfer tools. Published patent applications disclose their inventions in a way that enables downstream innovation to build on them (not without the risk of infringement). This is also true for patents originating from programmes like Artemis II. For space technology in general, patents and applications may be one of the easiest routes to learn the technology. (Tearing down a competitor product is probably going to present serious challenges.)
All technical industries face their challenges. As those challenges approach those of the space industry, and Artemis in particular, we will see space-borne innovation begin to find footholds elsewhere. For example:
- Advanced materials (lightweight composites, radiation shielding) may find applications in automotive, aviation, and energy industries
- Autonomous systems and robotics could have applications in logistics, healthcare, and manufacturing
- Life-support and environmental control systems for water purification, air filtration, circular economy technologies, and farming
- AI and data systems, for example, in predictive maintenance, logistics and remote operations
You mention that IP provides a “framework for ownership and collaboration” – why is that balance between protecting an invention and enabling others to build on it so important in a context like space technology?
A mission like Artemis II is too complex and too costly for any single entity to plan, design, build, and fly in isolation. In these scenarios, collaboration is essential. When it comes to space technology more generally, it is possible for a company to generate their own IP in isolation; many do! Many others generate their own IP while still participating in collaborations. However, again, many others do so within collaborations, for example, between companies or companies and academics, with inventors from all parties.
IP and the agreements around IP provide a level of legal certainty that allows parties to collaborate without losing control of their innovations. Without protection, there would be less incentive to invest in the research at the scale required.
At the same time, overly restrictive IP and agreements can stifle progress. Why would I collaborate with you if you are going to keep all the spoils? IP, with associated contractual arrangements, balance all this through licensing models, assignments, and access rights in collaborative agreements, for example.
For those who developed it, IP is about controlled sharing, which is critical in a system where multiple actors must build on each other’s technologies.
Given how much space programme technology involves international partnerships and public funding, are there any particular challenges in patenting innovations that come from them?
We’ve touched on licensing and arranging contracts to use the IP, but determining who owns the IP can be a challenge when multiple parties contribute. Public funding, for example, academic grant funding, often comes with obligations around access, disclosure, or licensing. Sometimes these obligations can be difficult to reconcile with the demands of partnering commercial entities.
There are also specific requirements in many jurisdictions when it comes to defence technology, which can be a broad net, for example, export control and security restrictions. There are also special patent processes and restrictions around applying for and obtaining protection for such inventions. The provisions are focused at a national level, and with collaborations often spanning international borders, these requirements can become complex, sometimes insurmountably so. Space technology, by its nature, can find itself within defence-related restrictions, generally and from a patent perspective.
We’ve covered ownership and licensing. However, the patent portfolio itself also has to be developed and directed. With many parties involved, their priorities may not align. Early and clear agreement when it comes to IP strategy is important for IP resulting from collaborations. This is true both from a cost perspective (who is bearing those costs), and from a decision-making perspective (who’s making them).
If we look beyond space, which industries do you think are best placed to absorb and commercialise the technologies otherwise being developed for space?
Several industries are particularly well-positioned:
- Aerospace and defence: direct technology transfer is clear. The defence sector is taking an increasing strategic interest in space, being there and using it. Clearly, much of space technology aligns with these, either directly or indirectly.
- Automotive and mobility: lightweight performance materials, autonomy, energy systems
- Healthcare and life sciences: remote monitoring, life-support technologies, low-gravity pharmaceutical manufacturing
- Energy and climate tech: energy storage, efficiency, climate monitoring from orbit
- Telecommunications: satellite infrastructure and data systems, communications and associated fields – quantum systems and cryptography
As many of these do, space-driven technologies that align with other global trends are probably more likely to find a commercial foothold, and eventual uptake elsewhere.
As the space economy grows, how should companies and research institutions be thinking about their IP strategy to ensure they can participate in, and benefit from, that growth?
They need anticipate many of things we’ve spoken about:
- Identify core innovations and nice-to-haves early and take proactive decisions on prioritising IP protection
- Understand collaboration structures and inventorship, ideally in advance of the inventive activity. This is important for generating revenue, but also for improving the logistics of the patent process itself
- Use patents not just defensively, but positively, to support licensing, partnerships, spin-outs and investment cases
- Understand the international nature of the space technology sector and how to prioritise an IP strategy to do enough, while knowing that “everywhere” is probably overkill (and high cost)
- Align IP with business objectives. Relatively few businesses are made or broken by IP alone. Much more common is using IP as a tool, as one of a range, to push a successful business as a market defender and as an enabler
What are the most important patent fundamentals that companies need to know when scaling new and cross-collaborative technologies?
This isn’t really the place for true patent fundamentals – novelty, inventive step, etc., there are plenty of resources on those, and they apply equally to all technologies and patents.
When technologies are developed collaboratively at scale, patents are less about isolated rights and more about co-ordinating multiple actors with an IP portfolio. The real skill is not just securing protection, but designing and agreeing among collaborators on how others can move around within that protection. With scale comes competition, and effectively using a portfolio to decide who and how you enable and support, and where you create friction, is important. On the one hand, use IP to protect market share, and on the other, use it to generate revenue and otherwise support.
Anything else you would like to add?
National space programmes, like the Artemis programme for the USA, are flagship endeavours. They make the news, and rightly so. These programmes are only possible with collaboration. We’ve spoken about the IP from those collaborations – these are the intangible assets, protectable by IP. But I think there are also the “intangible intangibles”. The skills of the workforce engaged with these programmes, in both commercial enterprise, government, and academia. In particular, as well as the inventions they make within the programme, they also upskill. They are undertaking engineering with the most stringent requirements, learning as they go. Those skills are highly valuable. Many of these people then go into other adjacent industries, taking those skills with them. At a higher level than intellectual property, real national value is created.
