Software, secrets and the illusion of “patenting the app”
In 2025 most patent filings in Colombia came from non-residents. For a local SaaS the asset is usually code (DNDA), know-how (trade secret) and contracts — not an invention title over the interface.
What the figures say
The same 2025 SIC count shows 2,148 patent applications in Colombia: 1,776 from non-residents (87%) and 372 from residents (13%). The signal is clear: most of the technology sought to be protected here originates abroad. That does not mean a Colombian SaaS “must patent”. It means the right instrument must be chosen.
Decision 486, as a rule, does not treat computer programs as patentable inventions in themselves. Code is protected by copyright (Law 23 of 1982, Decree 1360 of 1989, DNDA). If there is a new technical solution — a process, a device — there may be a patent on that object, not on “the app”.
The gap that kills the round
The repository in the CTO’s personal account, freelancers without assignments and a Drive holding the algorithm’s “secret”. The investor is not buying a Figma file: they ask who can stop a former employee from taking the know-how.
Law 256 of 1996 and Decision 486 require, for a trade secret, that the information be secret, have value from not being known and be subject to reasonable measures of reserve. An NDA with no access control does not turn into a secret what was already explained in the pitch.
The approach
A map of code, contributions, open-source licenses and of what must not leave the perimeter. Assignments in the company’s name. NDAs and development agreements. A conscious decision: copyright + secret, or also a patent if the technical component can sustain it.
The data room stops being a folder of PDFs: it is the answer to who owns it, what is licensed to the client and what stays internal.
General analysis of the Colombian framework. It is not legal advice and does not describe a named client matter.
