Disagree Better: Communicating Across Disciplines in IP Law
Disagreement is a crucial part of innovation. Any patent attorney (whether in-house or in private practice) knows that productive friction between legal and technical teams can sharpen ideas, strengthen patents, and drive innovation. Yet these disagreements can just as easily turn unproductive when communication breaks down.
Recent research on constructive disagreement offers useful insights for the intellectual property profession. The key finding: good intentions aren’t enough. Wanting to be open-minded or respectful doesn’t automatically translate into being perceived that way. The difference lies in how you use language, a.k.a. your observable behaviours that are perceived by the person you disagree with. We’ve compiled some key advice to ensure that disagreement actually furthers your discussions, rather than obstructing them.
Consider Perception
Many patent attorneys pride themselves on clear, rational communication. However, the most logical argument can still fail to land if it comes across as dismissive. For example, an R&D engineer might interpret an attorney’s valid critique as negativity; or a business leader might see a realistic risk assessment as resistance to innovation.
Research shows that in order to bridge the intention–perception gap, you have to make curiosity, respect, and collaboration explicit through your language. In other words: don’t just be open-minded, sound open-minded.
For example, rather than saying “That claim is too broad,” an attorney might start with, “I can see that you want to capture the broader concept. Let’s see how we can phrase it so it still stands up to examination.” Similarly, acknowledging your shared goals (“How can we obtain the broadest protection possible?”) reframes the discussion as a joint effort rather than a debate.
Express Curiosity Openly
One of the simplest and most effective strategies is to show that you want to understand the other side. Patent attorneys and inventors both operate in their own sphere of expertise, where each side can feel compelled to ‘defend’ their position. Phrasing questions to show genuine interest, such as “I’d love to understand more about how that mechanism works in practice”, encourages technical colleagues to open up and makes collaboration smoother.
The same applies to internal or client-facing discussions in private practice. Expressing curiosity is a better way to project both confidence in yourself and respect for an opposing viewpoint, e.g., “From my experience, that argument can be risky before the EPO, but I’d be interested in how you’ve seen it applied in your field?”.
Use Language as a Tool
For IP professionals, language has always been a core tool, but this research suggests it can also be a bridge between disciplines. Training patent attorneys to use receptive, inclusive language could be just as valuable as technical or procedural updates.
Leaders within legal and R&D teams can model these communication techniques in meetings and feedback sessions, making constructive disagreement part of the team culture. Over time, teams that can challenge each other respectfully are more likely to spot risks early, refine strategies, and reach stronger outcomes for innovation.
In short, disagreement isn’t the enemy; misunderstanding is. In the IP profession, precision in language is what fuels progress. The moment you master how your words land, tense conversations become insightful and give way to momentum within the team. Ultimately, innovation doesn’t come from unanimous agreement, but from disagreement done well.
