PCOS name changes to PMOS: Will PCOS’ name change impact patent applications

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) has long been recognised as a common condition affecting approximately one in eight women worldwide, but the terminology has increasingly been viewed as scientifically inaccurate and clinically misleading.

The term 'polycystic' implies the presence of pathological ovarian cysts, despite evidence that many patients do not have such cysts, and that the condition is in fact a complex, multisystem disorder involving endocrine, metabolic, reproductive, and psychological features. This mismatch has been associated with delayed diagnosis, fragmented care, and constrained research and policy framing. [ref: the lancet]

Following a 14-year global consensus process involving clinicians, researchers, and patient groups, a new name, polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome (PMOS), was formally proposed and published in The Lancet on 12 May 2026. The revised terminology is intended to better reflect the underlying pathophysiology by capturing the condition’s hormonal (polyendocrine), metabolic, and ovarian components, while removing the misleading reference to cysts. A phased global implementation is planned, including updates to clinical guidelines, disease classification systems, and medical education.

How could PCOS’ name change impact patent applications or impact existing and new patent filings directed towards the condition?

From a terminology and claim drafting perspective, using both “PCOS” and “PMOS” (for example, “PMOS, previously referred to as PCOS”) could help keep the wording clear while the terminology is evolving. Using only “PCOS” could, in some cases, raise questions if readers expect the newer terminology to be acknowledged. More broadly, the updated way of describing the condition could also support claim language that is not limited just to ovarian features.

Reframing the inventive concept

In terms of the inventive concept, it may also be helpful to think about metabolic or cardiovascular effects as part of the core treatment story, rather than simply as side benefits. This is a move away from older applications, which may only focus on ovarian or reproductive aspects. It could also be sensible for the specification to touch on endocrine and metabolic mechanisms, so the application reflects the broader way the condition is now being discussed.

Prior art: a wider lens?

From a prior art point of view, a broader understanding of the condition could mean that prior art from neighbouring endocrine or metabolic fields is taken into account more readily. At the same time, there may be room to argue that earlier disclosures were based on a narrower, more ovarian-focused view of the condition.

When a disease changes its name, should patent strategy change too?

For existing portfolios, terminology changes can act as a useful prompt. It could be worth checking whether existing applications and strategy documents still read well against the updated terminology.  For instance, do specifications, claim sets, and internal strategy documents still reflect current clinical thinking? Are there opportunities to file further applications directed to metabolic or endocrine aspects that may previously have been underexplored?

In that sense, the renaming of PCOS is not just a linguistic update; it is a signal that the underlying innovation landscape may be shifting.

If you’re developing innovation in women’s health, clarity and foresight in your IP strategy have never been more important. Changes in terminology - such as those surrounding PCOS’ name change - can have real implications for how your inventions are protected and enforced.  If you have any questions, please get in touch with Alice Mortiboy, a member of Potter Clarkson’s dedicated femtech team.