Case Study: IP Strategy and Go-to-Market Challenges in Road Infrastructure

Olga Clarinda-Serebriakova

LL.M. Europees recht | LL.M. Intellectueel eigendomsrecht. Helping innovations move from idea to market through IP, commercialisation strategy, and cross-functional projects.

July 8, 2026

Some time ago, I had the opportunity to be part of a really interesting project that shaped my vision of IP from a business perspective. I joined a small company in the road and airport infrastructure industry. We had no large budget, no strong market position, and no established reputation. What we did have was an enthusiastic founder, four passionate people (including me), and the belief that innovation could open doors that traditional sales could not.

Entering a highly regulated industry dominated by large corporations was not an easy task. And there, intellectual property became a solid business strategy. Patents, utility models, and industrial designs helped us gain credibility, protect our innovations, and compete with companies many times our size. However, such industries are highly complex because almost every new product requires research, testing, certification, and persistence.

One of the most memorable projects I worked on was developing a two-component road marking material. You can see my photos from 2018, when I was working on the pilot (sandbox). At that time, this technology was still emerging, and bringing it to market was a long and demanding process. For regulated infrastructure products, it can take several years to complete development, testing, certification, and market approval. The product must undergo laboratory and field testing to demonstrate compliance with relevant standards; for example, in the EU, road marking materials are assessed against standards such as EN 1871 (material requirements), EN 1436 (performance requirements), etc. Manufacturers must also prepare technical documentation, such as Technical and Safety Data Sheets, and may need additional national approvals before the product can be used on public roads.

In that case, we faced an IP dilemma: whether to patent the formulation or protect it as a trade secret. We chose trade secret protection because the patentability of the formulation was uncertain and the invention could potentially be designed around through relatively minor modifications. After conducting patent research, we also identified potential challenges regarding novelty. In parallel, a freedom-to-operate (FTO) search was conducted to assess whether commercialisation of the product could infringe third-party rights in the relevant markets.

Looking back, I learned that a trade secret strategy works better when supported by a strong brand. Customers need confidence in the product through proven performance, independent testing, technical publications, and a strong reputation. In many industries, trade secrets and trademarks create good value when combined.

Another point to mention: I learned how difficult it is to balance innovation and commercialisation. R&D needs time for experimentation and validation. The patenting can take up to three years, while sales teams naturally want to bring products to market as quickly as possible. And premature disclosure before filing for IP protection affected potential market opportunities. It reinforced my belief that IP awareness should extend far beyond the legal department.

The strongest innovation cultures are built when R&D, IP, marketing, and sales work as one team—protecting ideas while prioritising developments that align with market needs.

That experience shaped a lot of how I think about innovation, intellectual property, and enterprise value today. It taught me that great ideas create value only when they are both protected and successfully commercialised.

Olga Clarinda-Serebriakova

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse