Innovation-led enterprises increasingly create value through intangible assets, yet lending systems remain predominantly structured around tangible collateral. This research note examines the resulting gap through the contrasting treatment of intellectual property in courts and financial institutions. Courts faced with patent disputes must evaluate evidence, technical contribution, licensing information and economic claims in order to reach a monetary outcome. Banks, by contrast, can often avoid unfamiliar intangible assets when evidence cannot be translated into existing credit processes. The note argues that this creates an institutional problem as much as a valuation problem. Established income, market and cost approaches already provide ways to reason about IP value, but lenders still need defensible information about enforceability, documented use, economic activity, market relevance and credible valuation reference points. For SMEs and technology companies whose principal assets may be patents, this gap can restrict access to finance despite substantial investment in innovation. The note therefore focuses on evidence-based valuation, differentiation across IP types, pilot structures and institutional capacity as practical foundations for more credible IP-backed finance.