The Lilly—Ascidian RNA Editing Deal: A Reminder That Platform Biotech IP Must Be Built for the Deal Table 30 Jun 2026 The recent collaboration between Eli Lilly and Ascidian Therapeutics around RNA exon editing is more than another headline in genetic medicine. It is a useful reminder of how sophisticated biotech value is being created: not only through a single product candidate, but through a technology platform that can support multiple targets, multiple indications, and multiple partnering models. One comment from Ascidian’s management particularly stood out: “We can probably edit almost any gene, but that doesn’t mean we should”. That is a very commercial way of looking at platform biotechnology. Many biotech companies begin with a lead product candidate. That is natural. Investors, regulators and potential partners usually want to understand the first product, the first indication, and the first clinical path. But where a company is built around a platform, for example, RNA editing, cell therapy, antibody engineering, or synthetic biology, the patent strategy should not be limited to the lead asset. A well-planned patent portfolio should answer at least three commercial questions. First, what is protected around the product? This includes the active construct, sequence, molecule, composition, formulation, delivery system, dose regimen, therapeutic use, manufacturing process, and any clinically meaningful patient subgroup, etc. For a therapeutic product, these layers can be just as important as the broad “platform” claims because they may define the real commercial product that reaches the market. Second, what is protected around the platform? Platform companies often need claims that capture the underlying technical engine, not just one application. This may include the design rules, editing mechanism, payload architecture, delivery vehicle, screening method, manufacturing workflow, or criteria for selecting suitable targets. These claims are often central to how a potential partner evaluates whether the technology can be applied beyond the first product. Third, what can be licensed, partnered or retained? This is where the Lilly—Ascidian deal is particularly interesting. Ascidian appears to be taking a selective approach to different disease areas. Its lead Stargardt disease program remains wholly owned, while other areas, such as neurological diseases and genetic kidney diseases, are being pursued through collaborations with major pharma partners. That kind of strategy only works if the IP strategy can support it. A platform company may want to retain one indication, partner another, carve out a target, license a field, preserve rights in certain territories, or keep future improvements for its own pipeline. To do this effectively, the patent portfolio needs sufficient granularity. This is where patent strategy and business strategy need to meet early. For platform biotech companies, patent filing should not be viewed only as a technical document or a defensive asset. It is also a future diligence document. It may be read by investors, pharma partners, IPO sponsors, regulatory advisers, competitors, and eventually litigators. Each of them will ask a slightly different question: Does the company really own the core technology? Are the patent claims broad enough to cover meaningful variations? Is there support for future pipeline products? Can rights be carved out by field, target, indication or territory? Can the company retain some programs while partnering others? Will the portfolio still matter when the lead product changes? These questions are especially important in biotech because the first clinical candidate is not always the final commercial winner. A good patent strategy should leave the company with room to move. The recent interest in RNA editing and other genetic medicine platforms shows that pharma partners are willing to look beyond conventional product categories where the science is compelling. But the companies best placed to capture that value will usually be those that can show not only promising data, but also a thoughtful, defensible and commercially aligned IP position. In biotech, patents should not be an afterthought after the science is done. They should be part of how the company decides which assets to keep, which assets to partner, and how to build the science into a business.