The old way of assessing an IP’s Freedom to Operate relies on buying costly FTO patent landscape reports that provide critical patent analysis on existing patents, key players, and emerging trends.  The challenge is these FTO reports require expensive experts and a time-consuming  manual review process. As a result, they are essentially out of date as soon as they are delivered.

The old way to crystalize your idea often involves translating complex technical concepts into precise legal language, extensive back-and-forth communication with legal and IP experts, weeks or even months of tedious, time consuming investment, and the potential for misunderstandings that can ultimately weaken the patent application’s strength and defensibility.

The old way of assessing uniqueness requires expensive and lengthy patent trends analysis. Often outdated by the time it’s completed, these patent landscape reports  involve manually comparing similar products and related inventions within complicated patent databases, making it difficult to quickly position your innovations against existing IP.

The old way of filing a provisional patent involved complex legal paperwork, high costs, and time-consuming back-and-forth with patent attorneys. To meet all the provisional patent requirements is daunting for inventors, requiring significant expertise to ensure proper documentation, often resulting in delays and increased expenses before securing an early filing date.

The old way of filing a non-provisional patent application can cost between $25,000 to $75,000 per patent. Many manual steps are required including filing the utility patent, building out drawings, writing very precise claims, integrating all the provisional patent language and outlining prior art. All of this is done manually with expensive experts.

When an examiner rejects your claims, they issue an “office action” requiring a response. This involves reviewing prior art, understanding the issue, consulting with you, and drafting a reply. Each response is costly, as attorneys bill by the hour, and additional fees may apply for continued examination requests.

The old way of maintaining granted patents was a cumbersome process involving manual tracking of patent renewal deadlines, payment of maintenance fees, and responding to post-grant challenges. It required constant vigilance and often involved costly legal services or outside tracking vendors to avoid lapses, risking the patent’s validity and the protection it provided.

The old way of aligning patents with your business strategy is hard to maintain. It usually involves ad hoc, disconnected manual processes. This often leads to misaligned priorities, missed opportunities, and underutilized patents. To fix it requires extensive manual efforts to analyze and adjust, hindering the full potential of innovation within the company.

The old way of doing patent competitive intelligence requires manual tracking of competitors’ patents through time-consuming searches within hard-to-use patent databases. This labor-intensive process often results in incomplete data and outdated insights, making it difficult to stay ahead in the rapidly changing IP landscape.

Companies traditionally value their IP portfolios through costly and time-consuming patent portfolio  analysis, including manual patent evaluations, market analysis, and expert consultations. These approaches often rely on historical financial performance, licensing potential, and market position. This process can be imprecise, subject to fluctuations, and dependent on expert judgment, leading to inconsistent valuations.