European IP helpdesk case study : Robco, The Robot Company : how a self-aware robot revolutionises industrial automation.
Date: 2024-01-12
Institutions: European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency
Subjects: automation, case study, cloud computing, industrial robot, intellectual property, small and medium-sized enterprises, software, start-up

CASE 
STUDY

RobCo: The Robot Company. 
How a self-aware robot revolutionises 
industrial automation. 

www.ec.europa.eu/ip-helpdeskRobCo is a young start-up from the Technical University of 
Munich (TUM) that currently employs more than 30 people. 
They specialise in modular robots with cloud-based software, 
which enables small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) 
to  easily  utilise  automated  robots  without  the  need  for  the 
usual complex and expensive setup.

Case StudyEuropean IP HelpdeskTechnology

Industrial robots are typically highly specific, individually trained systems that perform 
hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of the same repetitive movements. Setting up 
and training such a robot is a complex task that can keep a highly skilled expert busy 
for a couple of days. The same applies when any component of the robot or any of its 
movements needs to be changed. 

This  was  the  starting  point  for  a  research  group  at  the  Chair  for  Robotics  and AI  at 
TUM, which aimed to build a modular robot for industrial applications. The goal was 
to create a robot that could be applied to a wide range of technical capabilities with 
minimal  technical  effort.  The  industrial  user  should  be  able  to  set  up  (and  possibly 
make  some  changes  later  on)  and  train  the  robot  themselves,  without  the  need  for 
the  usual  expensive  experts. The  ultimate  goal  was  to  provide  the  customer  with  a 
complete  solution  package  for  their  problem,  including  the  robot  and  the  necessary 
safety  precautions,  the  periphery  modules  (e.g.,  grippers)  and  a  unified  platform  for 
selecting the robot and monitoring and statistics – in short, a complete IoT-Device.

This is particularly important for SMEs: whereas large companies can perfectly utilise 
traditional  industrial  robots  (high  numbers  of  repetitive  movements)  and  cover  the 
high setup costs, SMEs require more flexibility in the operation of the robot (including 
frequent changes) and an easy setup.

The solution was to create a set of different modules that could be easily combined to 
allow for all necessary configurations:

•  3 driving modules
•  14 connection modules
•  Various gripping modules

Case StudyEuropean IP HelpdeskTypical industrial robots have up to seven axes, although in most cases, fewer axes 
are needed. With a flexible setup, only the necessary axes are chosen, leading to a 
reduction in mass/weight and improved characteristics of the robot.

Sensors are integrated into all modules, allowing each module to know which other 
module is next to it. All sensors collect kinematic and dynamic data, so a full model can 
be built (digital twin), allowing the robot to know itself.

Setup

If a user would like to set up such a robot, they can – instead of calling for an external 
consultant – simply take a picture or video of the setting in the live industrial environment 
and define certain points or movements, using a mobile or a tablet (LIDAR sensor). 
The data is uploaded to a website and RobCo provides a recommendation regarding 
the setup of the robot and the movements, including a simulation. If the user agrees 
and wants to build the system, the individual modules are sent to the user, who can 
easily assemble the robot (like an IKEA piece of furniture). The data for teaching the 
robot  is  downloaded  from  the  cloud  (supplied  by  RobCo  based  on  the  user’s  initial 
data) and some final optimisation is done in the live environment.

The  modular  approach  has  several 
advantages:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Easy setup and installation
Fast availability
Reduced complexity
Easy replacement of broken modules
Easy repurposing of the robot

Case StudyEuropean IP HelpdeskThis approach further allows for innovative business models: since there are only a 
limited  number  of  modules  that  can  be  combined  in  different  ways  to  realise  many 
different tasks specific to individual user needs, it is much easier to establish a rental 
model (robot as a service). In contrast, using traditional industrial robots would require 
many different types of robots for such a rental offer, driving up the costs.

The digital twin allows for an extended service offering of RobCo, such as maintenance/
service of the robots and “fleet management” if the user has several robots in operation.

There are currently 3 digit robots active in the field and RobCo is growing by 3x every 
year, both in terms of installations in the field and also in terms of revenue.

Case StudyEuropean IP Helpdesk 
Start 

The RobCo endeavour started about seven years ago with three PhD projects and the 
company was founded about three years ago. The founders saw a market for modular 
industrial robots and applied for a dedicated funding scheme for start-ups in Germany 
(i.e.,  the  EXIST  funding). The  first  application  was  rejected,  but  a  second  improved 
application was successful. One improvement was the addition of another founder with 
a background in electrical engineering, complementing the technical expertise of the 
other founders. All three founders knew each other from their studies at the Chair for 
Robotics and AI at TUM.

This EXIST funding scheme (granted for two years) offered the possibility to start their 
spin-off  activities  while  still  being  at  TUM  and  using  the  university‘s  infrastructure. 
This is part of this special funding scheme: EXIST provides funding to the founders, 
but the university must commit to some in-kind contributions, such as office and lab 
space. About 1.5 years after receiving the grant, the start up moved into its own facility, 
which was a major step in the company’s development and also resulted in a different 
perception  from  customers  and  suppliers:  from  a  student  or  university  initiative  to  a 
“real” young company. 

Financing the Journey 

Before the EXIST funding, the start-up was able to secure a few smaller grants, but 
the two major financing sources were the EXIST funding and investment by “Freigeist 
Capital”, Frank Thelen’s investment company. This investment happened quite early 
and was a significant move for the company. Along with “Freigeist”, there were a few 
smaller investments by business angels.

“Freigeist” did a thorough Due Diligence, with patents playing a significant part in this 
process.  It  was  important  that  RobCo  had  the  exclusive  license  to  the  basic  patent 
(owned by the university), which means RobCo is therefore able to block competitors 
who would like to move in the same direction with modular robots. At the same time, 

Case StudyEuropean IP Helpdeskthe topic of FTO (Freedom to Operate) was an important part of the Due Diligence, 
which required many intensive discussions and analyses, carried out by a dedicated 
patent attorney, together with the founders’ team and the (later) investors.
In December 2022, RobCo was able to secure an investment of EUR 13 Mio from the 
US-based venture capital company “Sequoia Capital” and a few other investors. Again, 
IPR formed an important part of the Due Diligence.

Patents

RobCo’s success can be partly attributed to a basic patent filed by a PhD student and 
a professor before the founders joined the university institute at TUM. The university 
holds  the  patent,  and  RobCo  has  an  exclusive  license.  Fortunately,  this  patent  was 
filed,  as  sometimes  the  focus  of  a  university  institute  is  on  publishing  rather  than 
patenting.  However,  if  done  smartly,  both  goals  can  be  achieved  by  filing  a  patent 
before publishing. 

In the early days of the start-up (while still at the university), resources were scarce, 
and the founders had to carefully consider where to invest their time and effort. There 
were two options: 

•  Focus on further developing the technology into first products (with less emphasis 

on new research, meaning fewer new patent applications), or 

•  produce many patent filings in the hope of becoming an attractive target for an 

established industry player.

They decided to focus on the first option (further developing the technology with fewer 
new  filings).  However,  despite  this  focus  on  being  close  to  the  market,  they  did  not 
completely abandon research and always remembered the importance of patenting. 
So even during this period of reduced research activity, they filed an invention report 
with the university for a new invention. However, the university decided not to pursue 
it further since a thorough search for state of the art destroyed most of the expected 
novelty (subsequently, the inventors did not file an application either). 

Case StudyEuropean IP HelpdeskNow, with the first product on the market, there has been more time for research. A 
new patent has just been granted (with an application for a dedicated German funding 
scheme for companies that have not filed a patent so far or at least not in the last five 
years).

The decision regarding whether or not to patent was made among the founders in the 
early days; now, it is between Engineering and Finance/Legal. The basic question is 
about the potential benefit of a patent with regards to three aspects:

•  Protection of the core technology
•  Marketing effort
•  Business value (potential out-licensing or trade sale)

According  to  RobCo’s  experience,  a  patent  has  several  highly  positive  effects  for  a 
young company:

•  For customers and suppliers: offers credibility to the company – this is not just a 
group of young students experimenting with a new company, but they are serious 
and willing to invest time, effort, and money (such as for a patent).

•  For customers and suppliers: Credibility / “Proof” for the technology – it is always 
fairly difficult to understand how sound a brand-new technology is. While having 
a  patent  for  a  new  technology  does  not  mean  that  the  patent  examiner  has 
thoroughly tested the technology, it still gives the technology a certain “proof” or 
seal of excellence. 

•  For  investors:  protecting  the  technology  against  competitors.  Entry  barriers  for 

competitors are raised.

•  Patent as a marketing tool: patents are quite important to some customer groups. 
This is why RobCo sometimes mentions the patent protection of its products in 
its marketing material.

Regarding  competitors,  there  has  been  no  conflict  so  far:  no  company  has  violated 
RobCo’s patents nor has any third party accused RobCo of violating their patents. 

RobCo  actively  monitors  its  competitors’  patenting  activity.  The  goal  is  to  identify 
possible upcoming conflicts that RobCo would be willing to actively address. In addition, 
much business intelligence can be gained by studying competitors’ patenting activities, 
such as decisions regarding technical designs.

Case StudyEuropean IP HelpdeskFreedom to Operate (FTO) is an important 
topic for RobCo, as the market for robotics 
is  highly  dynamic,  especially  the  young 
market for modular robotics. Therefore, the 
important  patents  in  the  area  of  modular 
robotics  are  rather  new  and  most  likely 
active,  whereas  the  basic  patents  in  the 
area  of  general  robotics  have  all  expired. 
FTO is carried out early on with a dedicated 
patent attorney who conducts research on 
potentially critical patents. Based on these 
findings,  a  joint  team  of  RobCo  and  the 
patent  attorney  makes  decisions  on  each 
of the identified patents.

RobCo’s Patents at a Glance

1. Patent granted: EP3867019B1 

“ANTI-COLLISION SAFETY MEASURES FOR 
A MODULAR ROBOT” (granted)

Owner: Technical University of Munich, 
exclusive license for RobCo 
(derived from PCT filing, PCT/EP2019/078463)

2. Patent granted: DE102021121113B3 

“COUPLING DEVICE FOR A ROBOT, 
COUPLING PARTIAL DEVICE THEREFORE, 
AND ROBOT HAVING A COUPLING DEVICE”

German filing, granted, derived PCT filing
Applicant: RobCo

Regarding  other 
intellectual  property 
rights, the trademark is of high importance 
for  RobCo,  and  they  learnt  this  the  hard 
way.  The  early  name  of  the  company  was  Kea  Robotics,  but  due  to  problems  with 
other trademarks, the company had to change its name. Before deciding on RobCo as 
their new name, they conducted a thorough analysis with the support of a trademark 
attorney.

Case StudyEuropean IP Helpdesk 
Lessons Learned

Members of the start-up team should have different and complementing 
backgrounds

Access to relevant IP, especially patents, is very important for investors

A clear understanding of the Freedom-to-Operate (FTO) is essential

Think about IP early on (especially before publishing)

Take a dedicated decision whether to patent an invention 

Active monitoring of competitors‘ patenting activity provides important insights

Case StudyEuropean IP HelpdeskContact Details

RobCo GmbH 

Paul Maroldt

Co-Founder & Head of Robot Engineering

München, Germany

MAIL

paul.maroldt@robco.de 

WEB

www.robco.de

Get in touch with us.
European IP Helpdesk
c/o Eurice GmbH
Heinrich-Hertz-Allee 1
66368 St. Ingbert, Germany
Web www.ec.europa.eu/ip-helpdesk 
Email service@iprhelpdesk.eu
Phone +34 965 90 9692 (Helpline)

Disclaimer

Property assets. 

The European IP Helpdesk provides free-of-charge first-line support 
on IP-related issues aiming to help current and potential beneficiaries 
of EU-funded projects, as well as EU SMEs, manage their Intellectual 
The European IP Helpdesk is managed by the European Commission’s 
European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency (EISMEA), 
with policy guidance provided by the European Commission’s 
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (DG RTD).
The information provided by the European IP Helpdesk is not of a legal 
or advisory nature and no responsibility is accepted for the results of 
any actions made on its basis. Moreover, it cannot be considered as 
the official position of EISMEA or the European Commission. Neither 
EISMEA nor the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf 
of EISMEA or of the European Commission is responsible for the use 
which might be made of this information.
Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
© European Union, 2024 
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2024
PDF: ISBN 978-92-9469-630-4   DOI 10.2826/076819  EA-02-23-175-EN-N

Case StudyEuropean IP Helpdesk