Patent portfolios grounded in technical substance.

In cryptography, AI and security, a useful patent starts with a clear account of what was invented, what is new, and what matters commercially. We learn the literature and the implementation details before we draft, including the paper in progress and the code.

We have built portfolios used as collateral in IP-backed financing, drafted foundational cryptographic patents that were later acquired, and served as IP counsel from formation through exit. Those outcomes depended on portfolios that could withstand review by sophisticated third-party counsel.

Patent strategy and prosecution

We identify patentable subject matter while research and product development are still underway, then translate it into applications that survive examination, litigation, and diligence.

Research engagement

For research organizations, the work often begins before a formal disclosure.

• Technical review. We read the draft paper, work in the shared repository, join the review calls, and ask the questions that separate the novel step from the surrounding body of work.
• Protection boundaries. We also flag what should not be claimed: prior art, scope that is too narrow to matter, and material better protected as a trade secret.

Claim drafting

Claim drafting in these fields has predictable failure modes.

• Artificial intelligence. Machine-learning inventions face Section 101 scrutiny aimed at abstract ideas and mental processes; we draft around concrete architectures, specific data-processing steps, and technical improvements.
• Cryptography. Cryptographic inventions require attention to the line between mathematical constructions and their implementations so that the claim protects a practical system without collapsing into an unpatentable equation.

Filing strategy

Filing decisions need to account for publication schedules, the maturity of the research, and the implementations likely to matter commercially.

• Provisional timing. We coordinate filings with academic submissions and planned disclosures, identifying the technical detail needed to support the intended claim scope.
• Conversion decisions. We assess whether the research, commercial prospects, and available support justify proceeding to a non-provisional application, and how the claims should develop.
• Continuation strategy. We consider claims directed to later implementations and applications, grounded in the original disclosure and informed by the evolving product roadmap.
• Claim-set priorities. We evaluate when continued prosecution is justified and when abandoning a claim set would allow resources to support stronger protection elsewhere in the portfolio.

Portfolio management

Portfolios need to track the technology roadmap, competitive position, and the requirements of future transactions.

Portfolio review and development

We manage continuation and divisional strategy to cover evolving implementations and preserve subject matter carved out during prosecution.

We assess existing portfolios for:

• Claim scope. We examine which technical features the claims cover, how competitors might implement alternatives, and whether further claims could address meaningful gaps.
• Geographic coverage. We compare filing coverage with the locations of relevant markets, competitors, and manufacturing, weighing protection against prosecution and maintenance costs.
• Remaining term. We consider the useful life of the patents alongside development timelines, anticipated licensing opportunities, and the commercial life of the technology.
• Product alignment. We assess whether the portfolio still covers the company’s current architecture and planned development, including changes since the original filings.

We then recommend consolidation, abandonment, or refocusing where maintenance cost no longer matches strategic value.

Invention records

A clean invention schedule includes:

• Applications and issued patents. The schedule connects each asset to its status, patent family, and relevant invention, making the portfolio’s structure and pending decisions intelligible.
• International counterparts. Related filings are mapped across jurisdictions so that geographic coverage, prosecution status, and family relationships can be reviewed together.
• Chain of title. Assignments and supporting records connect the inventors, any intermediate owners, and the current owner, with gaps identified before a transaction imposes its own timetable.

It is the difference between a portfolio that holds up in diligence and one that requires weeks of reconstruction under deal pressure.

Freedom-to-operate analysis

When products enter markets with dense patent activity, exposure assessment becomes a commercial necessity.

We map relevant claims against the product architecture. Where risk appears, our work includes:

• Engineering coordination. We work with engineering teams on design modifications that preserve functionality.
• Mitigation options. We advise on licensing feasibility, enforcement likelihood, and the relative cost of each mitigation path.

IP transactions

We build portfolios knowing they will be licensed, acquired, or used as collateral.

• Licensing, spinouts, and sales. For clients preparing to license, spin out, or sell, we position claim scope, chain of title, schedule, and valuation narrative.
• Buyers, licensees, and investors. We evaluate with the same rigor we use when building, examining whether the claims, ownership records, and technical coverage support the proposed transaction.

Full detail on licensing, joint development, M&A support, and inventor IP appears on the Licensing and Transactions page.