Some see emptiness.We see opportunity.

Most of what a patent costs is spent after you file, arguing with an examiner about claims that were written before anyone had mapped the ground. That argument is where the money and the years go.

• 80 / 61 / 40percent allowed

  Large entities get patents at 80%. Small entities at 61%. Micro entities at 40%.

  The gap is not examiner bias. It tracks claim quality, prosecution strategy, and whether anyone keeps going after the first rejection. All three are decided before you file.

  USPTO disposition data, January 2026

• 15%first-action allowance

  Roughly one application in seven is allowed on the first action.

  Rejection is the default state of a patent application, not a sign that something has gone wrong. Most of what follows is avoidable; some of it is not.

  Analysis of ~8M first actions, 2026

• 15-18months per round trip

  One extra round trip with the examiner costs months, not days.

  Total pendency runs about 27.5 months without a request for continued examination and about 45 months with one. The fee schedule changed in 2025 specifically to discourage repeat trips.

  USPTO pendency data, 2026

Figures are published third-party data, dated at the point of use. Cost estimates are modelled from survey medians rather than measured by us, and we say which is which.

1. Explore the void

   Map what has been claimed, and more importantly what has not. The landscape is the input to every decision that follows.

   01

2. Find the signal

   Recognise which gaps are actually valuable. Most empty space is empty for a reason; the work is telling those apart.

   02

3. Claim the territory

   Convert the insight into a filed, defensible position, drafted so it holds when someone tests it.

   03

1. 01

   Adversarial IP

   Attack the idea before the market does.

   The problem

   A letter arrives with a deadline on it, and nobody in the building can tell whether the threat is real or theatre. The instinct is to price litigation before anyone has checked the claims.

   What we do

   We map what the assertor actually holds rather than what the letter says they hold, then run your product element by element against the claim text. Where you are exposed, we engineer the routes out and cost each one against what the product has to keep doing.

   Why us

   We have no filing incentive. A firm paid to prepare filings cannot credibly be hired to attack the case for filing, and of thirty-five competitors reviewed, not one advertises red-teaming its own recommendations.

2. 02

   Scoped Patent Search

   Map the territory, and say where the map ends.

   The problem

   A database search tells you what already exists. It does not tell you what you should be patenting, and it cannot see the roughly one office action in four that cites art still unpublished when the search ran.

   What we do

   We map the field as a position: who holds what, what is still pending, what has been enforced, and where the live boundaries sit. Claims are read off the patent itself, never off a summary or a demand letter.

   Why us

   We state the scope and the date, and we tell you what the search could not reach. Nobody can deliver a complete search. A firm that promises one is either not aware of that or is counting on you not being.

3. 03

   White-Space Patent Ideation

   Find what others miss.

   The problem

   White-space reports are easy to produce and mostly worthless. Unpatented ground is trivial to find. Ground that is unpatented, would actually survive examination, and does something you commercially want is a far smaller set, and a report unwilling to say so hands you a list of ideas rather than a strategy.

   What we do

   Every candidate clears three filters, not one: genuinely unclaimed, plausibly grantable, and commercially wanted by you. We check each one against the incumbent's pending continuations, because the most attractive adjacent position is usually exactly where their next amendment is pointed.

   Why us

   Silence in the patent record is not evidence of open ground on its own. We corroborate against non-patent sources before calling anything confirmed, which is why our register is shorter than most and survives contact with a patent attorney.

4. 04

   Claim Architecture & Invention Capture

   Turn ideas into defensible ground. Your practitioner signs and files.

   The problem

   The usual route is several expensive rounds with a patent agent to arrive at something merely passable, with the applicant never certain what is worth filing or why.

   What we do

   We convert a finding into candidate claim architecture: what the independent claim has to cover, what the dependents protect, and where a competitor would attack first. You arrive at your attorney most of the way there and clear about what you are asking for.

   Why us

   We are not a law firm and we file nothing. Your attorney receives a technical record built to be acted on rather than a brief they have to reconstruct, and that back and forth is where most of the cost and most of the delay actually sits.

5. 05

   Patent Moat Creation

   Build barriers that last.

   The problem

   A single patent is a wall, and a wall can be walked around. A portfolio can also look healthy and be dying quietly: term runs out, continuation windows close, and nobody notices until the protection is gone.

   What we do

   We read the portfolio as a structure with an expiry date, then design a basket of positions that reinforce each other rather than a row of isolated filings. That is the difference between a moat and a wall.

   Why us

   We have mapped a twenty-year-old platform business and found that four of its five patents, its entire product moat, expired inside the same twenty-four months. That came out of public data in under an hour. The owner did not know.

The two we are asked for most →

1. A portfolio that was quietly expiring

   A long-established platform business believed its patents were its moat. We read the portfolio as a structure with an expiry date and found most of that protection ran out inside the same short window. It came out of public data in under an hour. Nobody there knew.

   A portfolio is a position with a clock on it, not an asset that sits still.

2. A demand letter with a date on it

   A company was told to respond within thirty days and was pricing litigation before anyone had read the claims. We mapped what the assertor actually held rather than what the letter said, tested exposure element by element, and costed the routes out against what the product had to keep doing.

   Most of the threat in a demand letter is in the letter, not in the claims.

3. A company we co-founded

   We ran the same process on ourselves before selling it to anyone else: mapped the field, attacked our own conclusions, and filed only what survived that. It is the reason the red-team step exists as a service rather than as a slogan.

   We do not recommend a method we have not been on the receiving end of.

Client work is confidential. These describe what the engagement looked like, never who it was for.