And why GitLife Biotech is part of this conversation
In synthetic biology, intellectual property disputes are rarely decided by patents alone. They are fought, and often won, on the strength of evidence. Not just whether you own an invention, but whether you can prove what happened to it: when it was created, who accessed it (and did they have a license to do so), and how it moved between parties. This is one key gap between having registered IP and enforcing it, particularly where IP is licensed to third parties for specific uses. Having spoken to many IP lawyers and companies in this space it is clear this is where most companies are weakest.
IP disputes can be about provenance, not just the scope of protection
IP disputes relating to breach of license terms can often be dependent on a simple evidential challenge: can you demonstrate the origin and history of a biological material that you are bringing the claim in respect of?
Courts will often consider a clear narrative and supporting evidence for this. In the case of materials which you believe are in the possession of a party who is not entitled to use it, you will need to evidence what the material is, when it was developed (and by whom), who had access, and under what terms it was transferred.
In synthetic biology, this is uniquely difficult. Biological systems are replicable, modifiable, and often indistinguishable at a functional level. Once a strain is shared externally, through collaborations, CROs, or licensing, its provenance can become increasingly opaque.
As a result, many disputes can turn on whether a company can establish a convincing chain of custody.
Why traditional IP tools are insufficient
Patents and IP contracts remain essential, but they do not solve the evidential problem on their own:
- Patents protect defined genetic innovations, but proving infringement requires demonstrating that a third-party product falls within the scope of those claims, which can be a technically complex exercise; and
- Contracts and MTAs define the scope of permitted use, but enforcement depends on showing that the disputed material originated from what was shared under those agreements.
strengthen a party’s evidential positionIn practice, companies frequently struggle to bridge this gap with evidence and have to rely on inference and probability. Without clear evidence of provenance, it becomes difficult to distinguish misuse from independent development or alternative sourcing. This is where disputes can become increasingly uncertain and costly.
Overcoming this uncertainty
What strengthens a claimant’s position is not limited to the existence of IP rights, but the quality of the evidence supporting their case.
A detailed audit trail that captures development steps, access, transfers, and permissions, can strengthen a party’s evidential position. If you can show when a strain was identified, who had access to it, and when it was transferred, it becomes harder for another party to argue independent creation.
Additional identifiers, such as DNA barcodes, can strengthen this further. If a disputed strain contains a unique marker linked to your records, it significantly narrows the scope for alternative explanations.
Critically, this is not about creating “perfect proof.” It is about reducing ambiguity. In many cases, stronger evidence leads not to courtroom victories, but to the often preferential outcome of faster and more favourable settlements.
The underlying issue: missing infrastructure
If evidence is decisive, the real problem becomes clear: most organisations are not set up to collect and subsequently produce it. Biological R&D today is fragmented. Data, samples, and records are spread across notebooks, lab systems, and internal files, making reconstruction difficult and expensive when it matters most.
This is in stark contrast to software, where version control systems can track every change, contributor, and branch, creating a complete and auditable history by default. Synthetic biology still lacks this foundational layer.
Why GitLife is uniquely positioned to lead
This is exactly the gap GitLife Biotech is addressing, and why it should be leading this conversation.
GitLife is not just another IP tool. It is building infrastructure for evidence. By combining version control (CellRepo) with DNA-level identifiers (Genosignatures), GitLife links physical biological assets to a continuous, auditable digital history.
This directly maps to how evidence can effectively be brought in to support disputes by providing:
- Version-controlled records demonstrating the full development timeline
- Access and transfer logs to establish chain of custody
- DNA barcodes to improve the ease and reliability of identification and establishing provenance
Together, these create something the industry has lacked: a defensible, structured account of a biological asset’s lifecycle. And that is precisely what courts and counterparties evaluate in real disputes.
Importantly, GitLife does not claim to replace legal frameworks. Instead, it intends to complements them, creating a data-rich, evidence-backed positions.
Final thought
Synthetic biology is scaling into a global industrial sector. But its interaction with the existing IP infrastructure remains underdeveloped. The next phase of the industry will not be defined solely by better inventions, but by the ability to prove, track, and defend them.
That is why this conversation matters. And it is why GitLife Biotech, sitting at the intersection of biology, data, and provenance, is uniquely positioned to lead it.
Leading European intellectual property law firm, Potter Clarkson helps companies, organisations, and individuals across all sectors of business to understand, create, protect, and defend the commercial value of their innovations anywhere in the world through IP rights. Recognised as a top tier firm, it is known for its wide-ranging technical and legal expertise, progressive thinking, deep commercial insight, approachability, and clarity of advice.
With the infrastructure to match its credentials as a leading European firm, Potter Clarkson’s 200-strong specialist team operates from dedicated offices in the UK, Sweden, and Denmark.