The agents
inventors actually
recommend.

The Problem

We received a cease-and-desist on a Monday morning. A larger competitor claimed our autonomous path-planning algorithm infringed their '09 patent. We had six weeks before they'd file in district court. I needed someone who could read their claims and tell me whether we actually had a problem — or whether they were bluffing.

The Strategy

Patricia conducted a rapid claim-by-claim mapping against our implementation, identified that our algorithm used a fundamentally different graph traversal method, and filed a provisional capturing our specific approach within ten days. She then drafted independent claims broad enough to dominate the space while staying clear of the competitor's dependent claims — a distinction that ultimately mattered in the IPR proceeding eighteen months later.

The Outcome

The competitor withdrew the C&D after seeing our provisional filing. Our utility application issued twenty months later with eleven independent claims intact. The competitor's continuation application was rejected on double-patenting grounds, in part because of the prior art we established.

The Problem

We needed a freedom-to-operate opinion before committing $4.2M to a new sustained-release formulation. Three patents in the landscape looked problematic. Our previous outside counsel gave us a 40-page memo that said 'it depends' twelve times. I needed someone who could actually answer the question.

The Strategy

James performed a claim-by-claim element analysis against our specific formulation parameters, identified that two of the three patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during prosecution, and drafted a detailed FTO memo with a clear risk matrix. He then filed a patent application capturing our novel excipient ratio — a narrow claim set designed to clear the landscape while protecting our actual commercial embodiment.

The Outcome

FTO opinion delivered in three weeks with a clear green-light recommendation. The patent application issued with a first-action allowance — rare in Class 424. The issued patent has since been cited by four subsequent filings from two major pharmaceutical companies.

The Problem

I had a prototype for a minimally invasive retractor system that I'd been developing for three years in my garage. I'd been told by two firms that my idea was 'too close' to existing art to be worth filing. I needed someone who could either confirm that verdict or find a path through the landscape.

The Strategy

Rachel performed a thorough prior art search and identified that the existing art all described fixed-angle retractors. My design's dynamic angle adjustment was entirely unclaimed territory. She drafted a claim set structured around the adjustment mechanism rather than the retractor geometry — a pivot that the two previous firms had missed. The specification was written to support both the specific embodiment and a broader continuation strategy.

The Outcome

Patent issued with three independent claims covering the adjustment mechanism. Eighteen months after grant, Stryker Corporation approached us for a licensing discussion. The deal closed at a royalty rate that exceeded my original valuation by 40%.

The Problem

We were twelve days from our provisional's one-year anniversary with no non-provisional filed. Our previous agent had gone silent. I found Patricia at 11pm on a Thursday. She answered.

The Strategy

Patricia reviewed the provisional, identified three claim families worth pursuing, and filed a complete non-provisional application with forty-two claims across all three families before the priority deadline. She flagged that our provisional specification had a critical gap in the antenna array description and filed a continuation-in-part simultaneously to capture the updated implementation.

The Outcome

Non-provisional filed with seventeen hours to spare. The CIP application is currently pending with a strong specification. The original utility application issued with all three claim families intact — a coverage footprint that our Series A investors cited as a key IP asset in the term sheet.

The Problem

We received a final rejection after two rounds of prosecution. The examiner's position was that our membrane filtration method was obvious in light of three references. Our previous agent had filed a response that, frankly, conceded too much ground in the dependent claims. I needed someone to take over mid-prosecution and salvage what we had.

The Strategy

James filed a Request for Continued Examination and took an entirely different prosecution strategy. He identified that the examiner had mischaracterized the teaching of the primary reference — a 2009 EPA technical report that, read correctly, actually supported our novelty argument. He requested an examiner interview, presented a side-by-side comparison, and secured an agreement on a claim amendment that preserved the commercial scope of protection.

The Outcome

Patent issued fourteen months after James took over the prosecution. The allowed claims cover our core membrane geometry — the claims our original agent had offered to cancel in the previous response. We're currently in licensing discussions with two municipal water treatment authorities.