Intellectual Property Portfolio Development

We read the papers. We run the code.

Patent strategy in frontier technology is not a translation problem where a generalist converts the inventor's description into patent language. Rather, it is a technical problem, where the quality of the protection is determined by the firm's understanding of what was actually invented, what is actually new, and what actually matters to the field.

Our practice is built around a commitment to understand the technical literature and the implementation details of the inventions we protect at a meaningful and significant level. We read the papers in draft. We revew the code.

The test of this approach is whether the work holds up when it matters. We have built patent portfolios used as collateral in IP-backed financing. We have drafted foundational cryptographic patents that were later acquired. We have served as IP counsel to companies from formation through exit. Each of these outcomes depended on a portfolio that could survive scrutiny by sophisticated third-party counsel, whether for a lender, an acquirer, or an underwriter.

We work across critical domains including post-quantum and applied cryptography, artificial intelligence and machine learning, cybersecurity, and data-driven systems. Our clients are research organizations developing foundational primitives and tech startups building commercial products on top of them.

Patent Strategy and Prosecution

We partner with clients to identify patentable subject matter in the midst of ongoing research and product development, and to translate inventions into patent applications that survive examination, litigation, and diligence.

Invention identification and disclosure. For research organizations, our work often begins before an invention has been formally disclosed. We read the paper in draft. We work in the shared LaTeX repository where the paper is being written. We join the review calls. We ask the questions that surface what is actually novel (which algorithmic step, which system architecture, which optimization), and distinguish it from the body of work that led to it. We also identify what should not be claimed: the portions that are prior art, the portions whose claim scope is too narrow to matter commercially, and the portions where trade secret treatment is preferable to disclosure in a patent.

Claim drafting for contested subject matter. Frontier technology patents face rejection patterns that a generalist practice does not. Machine learning inventions face heightened scrutiny under Section 101, with examiners attuned to the "abstract idea" and "mental process" exceptions. We draft claims around concrete system architectures, specific data-processing steps, and technical improvements, not around abstract learning objectives or black-box outcomes. For cryptographic inventions, we draft with attention to the interplay between mathematical constructions and their implementations, protecting the practical system without reducing the claim to an equation, and anticipating the "mental process" line of rejection that has derailed under-drafted cryptography applications.

Provisional and non-provisional strategy. Timing matters in fast-moving fields. We advise on when to file a provisional to anchor a priority date ahead of an academic submission, when to convert, when to file a continuation to capture a subsequent implementation, and when to let a claim set go in favor of a stronger one. Research-organization clients face an additional question: the paper is going to appear, and the patent strategy must accommodate that fact without being controlled by it.

Portfolio Management

A patent portfolio is an asset that requires continuous attention. We manage portfolios for alignment with evolving technology roadmaps, competitive positioning, commercial objectives, and the specific demands of future transactions.

Portfolio architecture for research organizations. Research-org portfolios face distinct strategic questions. A single published paper may support three or four patent families; the right unit of filing depends on the technical structure of the research and the commercial map it is being built to support. We work with research directors and their IP teams to design filing strategies that track the research program rather than its outputs, and that position the portfolio for eventual commercialization, licensing, or transfer to a product-focused entity.

Portfolio architecture for tech startups. For startups, the demands are different. Portfolio decisions are constrained by runway, informed by roadmap, and evaluated against the expectations of the next investor or acquirer. We build portfolios that track product direction rather than research curiosity, and that translate cleanly into the language of diligence. Every application we draft anticipates the data-room question: show me the claim, show me the prior art, show me the commercial scope.

Continuation and divisional strategy. Foundational applications rarely capture the full range of their ultimate commercial value. We manage continuation strategies to cover evolving implementations, divisional applications to preserve subject matter carved out during prosecution, and continuation-in-part applications where the line between new matter and original disclosure is substantive and worth contesting. We advise on the timing of continuations in response to competitor product announcements, acquisition targets, and emerging standards activity.

Assessment and pruning. We evaluate existing portfolios for claim scope, geographic coverage, remaining term, and alignment with current product and research directions. We identify applications whose original claim set no longer captures the invention as implemented, patents whose maintenance fees are no longer justified, and gaps where the technology has evolved beyond the filed coverage. For portfolios accumulated over many years or through acquisitions, this assessment produces consolidation, abandonment, and refocusing recommendations that reduce maintenance cost while preserving strategic value.

Maintenance of the invention schedule. We maintain current IP schedules for our clients covering pending applications, issued patents, expired provisionals, international counterparts, and the chain-of-title documentation that underlies each. A clean schedule is the difference between a portfolio that holds up in diligence and one that produces weeks of reconstruction work under deal pressure.

Freedom-to-Operate (FTO) Analysis

We conduct freedom-to-operate analyses for clients whose products are entering markets where patent activity is dense and where exposure assessment is a commercial necessity.

The quality of an FTO analysis turns on the analyst's ability to read the patent, understand what it actually claims, and map the claim language against the product architecture. Where exposure is identified, we work with engineering teams to evaluate design modifications that preserve product functionality while reducing risk, and we advise on the practical questions of licensing feasibility, likelihood of enforcement, and the relative cost and benefit of each mitigation path.

IP Transactions

Portfolio development and transactional IP are inseparable practices. We build portfolios knowing they will eventually be licensed, acquired, or leveraged as collateral, and our portfolio work is shaped by that horizon.

For clients preparing to license, spin out, or sell, we position the portfolio for the transaction: claim scope, chain-of-title, schedule, valuation narrative. For clients on the other side, whether buyers, licensees, or investors, we evaluate portfolios with the same rigor we bring to building them.

Full detail on our licensing and transactional work, including joint development agreements, M&A support, invention-assignment paperwork, and related matters, appears on the Licensing and Transactions page.