Your patent docket, awake while you sleep.
A lead and specialists for prior art, office actions, claim charts, and oppositions — across USPTO, EPO, DPMA, and PCT.
Prosecution, oppositions, and infringement — your docket, on autopilot.
- Lead → routing to Prior-Art specialist
- Prior-Art → reading D1 col. 4–7
- Office Action Responder → drafting reply
- Claim Drafter → preparing auxiliary request
The applicant respectfully disagrees with the objection under ¶ Art. 56 EPC
D1 fails to disclose the feedback loop recited in claim 1, see ¶ D1, col. 5, l. 22–34
An auxiliary request is filed limiting claim 1 to the embodiment of Fig. 3.
Built for these practices.
Small firms running global dockets with limited bench depth.
Corporate counsel managing high-volume prosecution.
Trial counsel needing rapid claim-chart turnaround.
Concrete workflows. Named, not abstracted.
Argument and amendment, with auxiliary requests where appropriate.
Targeted, with citations to columns and lines.
Element by element, accused product mapped to claim.
From notice to brief, on EPO or PTAB cadence.
Tracked, deduplicated, filed on time.
Lead + specialists.
Each agent owns one kind of work, and owns it deeply. Like your best associates — except there are forty of them, they're all awake, and none are leaving for a bigger firm.
What it already knows.
- 35 U.S.C. · MPEPUS substantive and procedural law.
- EPC · GuidelinesEuropean prosecution and oppositions.
- PCT · WIPO timelinesInternational phase, national entry deadlines.
- IPC / CPC classificationsSearch strategy across families.
- Claim-construction playbooksPhillips, EPO problem-solution, German Auslegung.
What it will learn.
After 100 office actions, it knows which examiners accept which arguments. After 500, it knows your portfolio's claim-language preferences. After a thousand, it argues like your senior partner.
How this team handles ambiguity.
Is D1 anticipatory or merely suggestive of the claimed invention?
The team lays out both readings with citations, suggests the safer auxiliary request, and lets you choose the primary argument.
Examiner cites a non-analogous art reference. Argue analogous-art? Or amend?
The team estimates likelihood of withdrawal vs. acceptance, drafts both paths, and recommends one.
Receipts. Redacted.
The applicant respectfully disagrees with the objection under ¶ Art. 56 EPC
D1 fails to disclose the feedback loop of claim 1, see ¶ D1, col. 5, l. 22–34
An auxiliary request is filed limiting claim 1 to the embodiment of Fig. 3.
Claim 1[a]: 'a sensor coupled to the controller' — accused: PCB U7 ¶ Ex. A, p. 4
Claim 1[b]: 'wherein the controller adjusts a setpoint' — accused: firmware v.2.3 ¶ Ex. C, l. 88
The team's bookshelf.
The team tracks: 35 U.S.C., MPEP, EPC, EPO Guidelines, PCT, IPC/CPC and the leading case law in each jurisdiction.
Questions practitioners ask.
USPTO, EPO, DPMA, and PCT national-phase tracking. Others on request.
No. It prepares; you file. Always.
Per-firm isolation, per-matter access controls, EU data residency.
DE, EN, FR translations with terminology lock per matter.