We help technology companies and investors make stronger decisions around innovation, protection, trust and risk
16+ years · 1 000+ patents · 350+ technology research projects · $500M+ asset value context
These problems surface at the next round, enterprise review or transaction — when fixing them is expensive
No clear map of protected or patentable assets. Investor questions expose gaps in IP, ownership and process that cannot be closed quickly
Technology restrictions or competitor positions should have changed the roadmap — discovered too late
Core product ideas replicated. Without a process to identify and secure protectable assets, the company has little defense or negotiation leverage
Clients ask for GDPR, ISO, security evidence. Without it, enterprise deals stall or disappear
Key person leaves, contractor disputes rights. Code, data and know-how ownership is undocumented
A letter, threat or blocking risk appears. The cost of resolution is already high by the time you learn about it
Which algorithms, data methods and technologies have real defensible value
Code ownership, contractor IP, know-how boundaries, employee contributions
Where competitor positions, technology restrictions or market limits constrain your roadmap
Specific gaps that raise red flags during due diligence or enterprise review
Priority order: ownership gaps, compliance needs, competitive vulnerabilities
R&D converted into protected, transferable business value — not just product code
30 minutes. We identify the first risks, what may be worth protecting, and whether deeper review is needed
A structured review of what you own, what is protectable, and what will trigger investor or enterprise questions — before it becomes expensive to fix
From ~5 days, depending on scope. Written assessment, findings walkthrough on a call. Pricing is project-based
The cost of a technology misjudgment rises after IC — when price, terms and structure are already committed
Strong pitch, growing revenue — but core technology is unprotected, easy to replicate or built on restrictive open-source
Complex technology, unclear communication — but the real defensibility and upside are missed by standard review
Technology works at current scale but faces licensing, architecture or market constraints that block growth
Valuation reflects a growth story, not the actual strength or vulnerability of the technology position
Without specific technical facts, the fund cannot negotiate from strength on price, milestones or protection clauses
The asset has defensible positions in adjacent markets or use cases that neither the fund nor the founder has identified
Real defensibility vs. surface-level claims, tested against competitive landscape
Specific risks that should change valuation, deal structure or milestone conditions
Targeted questions based on technology analysis, not generic due diligence checklists
Does the planned development direction align with what the technology landscape actually allows
Defensible positions in adjacent markets or use cases not visible from standard review
Clear recommendation: proceed, adjust price/terms, request a deeper screen, or pass
30 minutes. We discuss one active deal, identify obvious risk areas, and decide whether a quick screen or IC-ready memo is needed
Sometimes the strongest move is not to protect the current path, but to change direction in time
Existing technology restrictions, protected solutions and areas where the landscape is closed
Competitive constraints, licensing limitations or market restrictions that may block product growth
Defensible development paths where innovation can be protected, scaled and monetized
Directions that may create ownership risks, restrict sales or conflict with competitor positions
Evidence-based assessment of whether the current path is worth defending or a pivot creates more value
For founders: stronger investor story. For investors: clearer asset strength assessment before IC
Series A company needed to know whether its core algorithm was defensible before approaching growth investors
Direction shifted to a novel, unprotected data processing method. Protection filed. Investor materials restructured around the stronger asset
Defensible technology story for investor conversations. Reduced exposure in weaker areas
Preparing for enterprise sales, found key features built by contractors with no IP assignment
Ownership restructured, contracts corrected, enterprise trust framework established
Passed first enterprise security review. Closed two large contracts within six months
Fund evaluating a Series B fintech at premium valuation. Company claimed proprietary transaction processing
Core logic based on open-source with restrictive licenses. Two key innovations unprotected and easily replicable
Offer adjusted to reflect actual defensibility. IP protection milestones negotiated as deal conditions
Anonymized notes from recent work: the situation, the decision, and what it changed. Client names, technologies and identifying details are removed. Updated monthly
Situation. A company preparing to raise treated its first patent filing as a formality: pick the core method, file it.
Takeaway. We first mapped what the team had already published and pitched, then researched the patent position of the entire field. Both changed the plan: instead of a single quick filing, the company got a strategic first application chosen for its position in the field and a 12-month patenting roadmap. A first filing is a strategic choice, not a paperwork step.
Situation. A security-software team had drafted broad claims around a new protection mechanism and asked for a novelty search to confirm they could file.
Takeaway. We ran the search against each claim feature rather than the invention as a whole, mapped which combinations were blocked by close prior art and which stayed clear, and rebuilt the independent claim around the clear zone. The filing went ahead - narrower, but sitting on a boundary we could defend. A novelty search is a map of the defensible boundary, not a go / no-go verdict.
Situation. A company entering a new market assumed local data-protection law required localizing its entire user-data stack in-country.
Takeaway. We read the statute category by category and separated the narrow class of data that genuinely had to stay in-country from everything movable under standard transfer mechanisms. The architecture shrank from full localization to a thin local layer - avoiding both an over-engineered stack and a quiet compliance gap. Residency rules are granular; reading them literally pays.
Situation. During US prosecution of an application on a machine-learning ranking system, the examiner proposed a restriction requirement by telephone, leaving days, not months, to decide.
Takeaway. The answer is only easy if claim priorities were mapped in advance. Electing the group closest to the shipping product, while keeping the second group alive for a divisional, preserved every option at near-zero extra cost.
Situation. While preparing patent research in an AI-security niche, we formed a hypothesis about a thinly protected technical direction based purely on gaps in the patent data.
Takeaway. We turned the gap into a concrete protection hypothesis and a search plan before committing any search budget. Public materials from a vendor in that niche later independently pointed at the same direction, validating the read. Patent-gap analysis can anticipate where roadmaps are heading - and public sources are a cheap validation loop.
A novelty search that comes back empty is more often a warning than a green light: it usually means wrong vocabulary, not a clear field. Good practice is a "sanity" query that should return known art; if that is empty too, the search is broken, not the field.
"Proprietary" is not a property of a technology - it is a claim to be tested. The most useful due-diligence output is often a short list of checkable questions that turn a vague "proprietary" into something an investment committee can verify.
In the agent-payments space, several recent US patents went from filing to grant in three to eight months. The recurring combination: expedited examination, an independent claim built around a fail-closed security mechanism, and a deep dependent cascade. Speed to grant is a designed outcome, not luck. We prepare the dependent cascade before filing, not during prosecution.
The first high-profile ISO/IEC 42001 certifications of consumer AI products signal that AI-governance evidence is becoming a market expectation. The documentation the standard requires overlaps heavily with what a strong patent disclosure needs. We run invention capture and governance documentation as one pass.
Situation. A single invention disclosure from a security-software team turned out to contain two independently patentable concepts aimed at different layers of the product.
Takeaway. We split it into two applications at the scoping stage: separate claim strategies, separate prior-art searches in different technical domains. By drafting time each application had its own clean story instead of one entangled specification. Unity problems are far cheaper to solve at scoping than at examination.
Similar situation in your company? Book a free 30-minute review call.
Independent technology, innovation and IP advisory. We work where technology direction, asset protection, competitive intelligence and investment risk intersect
Across 350+ research projects and 1 000+ patents filed globally, we see where technology positions are strong, where they are vulnerable, and where real value sits
Domains: AI, cybersecurity, cloud, telecom, fintech, biometrics, autonomous systems, SaaS. Network of specialized experts in IP, legal, privacy and compliance
No. Patents are one tool. The real value is broader: ownership clarity, competitive positioning, trust frameworks, technology direction and risk reduction
If you have a working product and decisions to make about direction or protection — no. The earlier you build the right structure, the cheaper it is to fix
We do not raise capital. We prepare the technology and IP layer so that when investors ask hard questions, you have defensible answers
Yes. Enterprise buyers require GDPR, ISO and maturity evidence. We build it before the opportunity requires it
We focus on strategic positioning and risk, not on freezing the product. Output stays relevant as the product evolves
No. We strengthen the technology and IP layer, which makes investor conversations more productive
We use AI where it adds value. But judgment across hundreds of real projects and translating findings into business language requires human expertise
Brief product description, technology stack overview, and any specific questions. No formal package required
It starts with a free 30-minute review call. If deeper work makes sense, the IP & Technology Readiness Review delivers a written assessment and a findings walkthrough — from ~5 days, depending on scope. Pricing is project-based
Regular due diligence answers "what exists now." We answer "how strong is this asset, what risks are hidden, and what does it mean for your deal." Decision layer, not code audit
No. We assess defensibility, identify hidden risks and underestimated potential, and translate that into investment consequences
Assessing real technology risk and translating it into fund language requires experience across hundreds of transactions. AI accelerates research; it does not replace judgment
Before IC, when the fund still has leverage on price, terms and structure. Post-term-sheet is possible but reduces strategic value
Clearer view of the asset. Specific questions for the founder. Risk-adjusted perspective that may affect valuation, terms or go/no-go
Yes. We support portfolio companies with technology direction, IP structuring and enterprise readiness
Strict NDA from day one. No deal information shared with any third party
Quick Risk Screen: ~5 days. IC-Ready Memo: 12–15 days. Written assessment, findings walkthrough on a call. Pricing is project-based
Send a deck, site or product description. We will use the free call to identify the first risks, questions and possible next steps
No commitment required. In 30 minutes we cover the first risks, priorities and whether deeper work makes sense