Intellectual Property

Patent prosecution and enforcement on one foundation.

Disclosure, drafting, office action response, claim charts, invalidity, and PTAB coordination on one connected case file. Family tracking, maintenance, FTO, and licensing extend the same foundation as the lane matures. Specialists prepare the work product. Attorneys approve.

IP firm AI journey

One IP platform that compounds your firm’s approved work.

Most IP firms run a drafting tool, an enforcement tool, a docket system, a DMS, and a research database. Five contracts. Five logins. None of them learn from your firm. FlowCounsel is one IP platform. Prosecution today: IDF, drafting, office actions, grant. Enforcement extending: detection, claim charts, invalidity, PTAB. Portfolio as the lane matures. Every approved draft, redline, and won OA response compounds into firm-scoped patterns only your firm can retrieve.

Option 1

Drafting-only IP AI

A drafting tool that produces patent applications and OA responses. The attorney coordinates everything else.

Single output

Application draft

Attorney still coordinates

Claim charts
Infringement detection
Family tracking
FTO + maintenance
Prosecution-shape only.

Option 2

Chart-only IP AI

An enforcement-shaped tool. Suspect-product detection and claim charts. No prosecution. No portfolio.

Single track · enforcement

Infringement detection
Claim chart builder

Attorney still coordinates

Drafting
OA response
Family tracking
FTO + maintenance
Enforcement-shape only.

Option 3

IP firm execution on FlowCounsel

Prosecution and enforcement on the same firm system. Portfolio as the lane matures. Specialists prepare. Attorneys approve. Every approved artifact compounds into firm-scoped patterns.

Three tracks · one system

Prosecution

today

IDF → drafting → OA → grant

Enforcement

extending

Detection → chart → invalidity → PTAB

Portfolio

direction

Family → maintenance → FTO → licensing

Firm-scoped · approval-gated

Nothing leaves the firm without sign-off
Specialists prepare. Attorneys approve.

Data trust for IP firms

Security starts with the architecture.

Privileged inventor disclosures and prosecution work product require more than policy promises. The architecture reduces risk before policy and process are added on top.

Firm-scoped retrieval

Every retrieval reads only from your firm’s data. No cross-firm reuse. The drafting patterns that improve your next OA response were built from your prior OA responses, not someone else’s.

No shared model training

We do not train shared models on your data. Your inventor disclosures, drafts, and prosecution history stay your firm’s.

Approval-gated outputs

Nothing reaches the USPTO, opposing counsel, or the client without attorney review. Approval is a product control, not a policy hope.

Privileged disclosure handling

Inventor disclosures are handled inside the same firm system as the work product they produce. Privileged context stays attached.

Encrypted in transit and at rest

Standard encryption for data moving in and data at rest. Your firm’s files are not stored in plain text.

Bounded retrieval, scoped storage

Each task pulls only what is relevant from the case, firm preferences, and approved past work. You see exactly what was loaded.

The IP firm workflow

Three tracks. One firm system.

Prosecution from inventor disclosure to office action. Enforcement from claim charts and invalidity to trial support. Portfolio from family tracking to maintenance, FTO, and licensing as the lane expands. The same firm system connects all three tracks.

Prosecution · 01 · Invention disclosure

Inventor submissions become structured drafting input.

Inventors submit through a privileged disclosure flow. The structured fields populate purpose, technical challenges, prior review, innovative solutions, comparative results, and unique aspects — drafting input ready before a single word is written.

Invention disclosure · IDF-2026-0148

Privileged · firm only

Structured fields

Building from inventor submission

Invention purpose

Reduce solder joint fatigue under thermal cycling

Technical challenges

Brittle interface failure in BGA packages

Prior review

3 internal disclosures · 2 published refs

Innovative solutions

Parallel-connected bonding structures

Comparative results

+47% cycles to failure vs baseline

Unique aspect

Geometric arrangement enables redistribution

Inventors

Thomas GriffinLead
Karen WallaceCo-inventor
James ParkerCo-inventor

Drafting input ready

All six dimensions populated. Sent to drafting with full context.

Prosecution · 02 · Application drafting

Claim tree, specification, and figures drafted in the firm system.

Claims, spec, abstract, and figure callouts draft from the disclosure inside the firm system. Jurisdictional defaults, attorney style, and your firm’s approved past drafts shape the output. Nothing leaves the firm until you approve.

Application drafting · USPTO

Firm style · attorney pending

Claim tree

Claim 1Independent

A semiconductor device comprising a substrate and parallel-connected bonding structures...

Claim 2Dependent

The device of claim 1 wherein the bonding structures are arranged in a hexagonal lattice...

Claim 3Dependent

The device of claim 1 further comprising a thermal interface layer...

Claim 4Independent

A method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising forming...

Specification · paragraphs

[0001]Field of invention
[0002]Background
[0003]Summary
[0004]Brief description of figures
[0005]Detailed description
[0006]Embodiments
Draft staged for attorney review

Prosecution · 03 · Office action response

Examiner cite → file wrapper + case law → response strategy.

The OA cite is parsed against the file wrapper, prior art, and relevant case law. A response strategy with multi-source citations is staged for your review. Examiner-specific patterns from your firm’s prior responses pre-load.

Office action response · App 16/123,456

Multi-source citations
Examiner cite·Tereck (US 2006/0214480)

Cited for teaching base layer · fig 5A-B at 72

File wrapper·Tereck prosecution history

Office action 2008-04-12 · base layer scope narrowed

Case law·In re Suitco Surface (Fed. Cir. 2010)

BRI standard during prosecution · supports narrower reading

Firm prior response·Examiner Patel · 4 prior responses

Pattern: emphasize structural distinction · 3/4 allowed

Response strategy staged

Attorney review pending

Argue structural distinction with In re Suitco support. Amend claim 1 to recite parallel arrangement explicitly. Cite firm pattern from prior Examiner Patel allowances.

Prosecution · 04 · Granted asset

Granted patent slots into the firm’s portfolio with metadata attached.

Issue date, claim set, family relationships, examiner, and assignee land in the portfolio with the prosecution history kept connected. The same foundation can support later enforcement and portfolio work without rebuilding the record.

Granted · added to portfolio

Issued

Asset metadata

US 12,034,567

Semiconductor device with parallel-connected bonding structures

Examiner

Patel, S.

Family

IDF-2026-0148 · 4 members

Independent claims

2

Total claims

14

Available to enforcement

Claims indexed for infringement detection. Suspect-product matching enabled.

Available to portfolio

Family graph updated. Maintenance windows scheduled. FTO scope expanded.

Same firm system

No re-entry. Prosecution history stays linked.

Enforcement · 05 · Infringement detection

Suspect products surfaced for attorney review.

Public product specs, datasheets, and code disclosures can be organized against portfolio claims for attorney review, with supporting evidence staged in the same case file.

Infringement detection · US 12,034,567

Continuous scan

Suspect products · ranked by claim overlap

SyncSport · PulseEdge 5

92%
high

MaxStride · FitFusion Pro

88%
high

AeroFit · MotionSphere V2

64%
partial

Thrive Plus · CoreSync

58%
partial

BioTrack · WellnessOne

31%
low

2 high-likelihood candidates

Evidence pre-organized for review. Claim chart drafting available with one click.

Enforcement · 06 · Claim charting

Claim elements mapped to product evidence with confidence indicators.

Element-by-element charts assemble inside the case file. Match, partial, no-match indicators surface where evidence is strong, weak, or missing. Exhibits and citations are pre-staged for the attorney’s review.

Claim chart · SyncSport PulseEdge 5

Element-by-element
A semiconductor deviceMatchDatasheet p.4 · device overview
comprising a substrateMatchDatasheet p.6 · silicon substrate
parallel-connected bonding structuresMatchTeardown fig 3 · parallel arrangement
arranged in a hexagonal latticePartialTeardown fig 7 · approximate hex pattern
a thermal interface layerNo matchNot disclosed in public materials

Match

3

Partial

1

No match

1

Discovery target identified

Element 5 (thermal interface) requires discovery into product internals. Targeted document request drafted.

Enforcement · 07 · Invalidity / IPR / litigation

Invalidity and later IPR work on the same case-file foundation.

Prior art, invalidity grounds, and earlier work on the matter stay connected in the same case file. As the lane expands, the same foundation can support later IPR and litigation drafting.

Invalidity / IPR · IPR2026-1184

PTAB filing draft
§ 102 anticipationstrong

JP 2003-148921 · published 2003

Discloses parallel bonding · arguable hex arrangement

§ 103 obviousnessstrong

Tereck + Patel (2008)

Combination teaches all elements with motivation

§ 112 indefinitenessmoderate

“parallel-connected” term

Specification ambiguity on connection type

Prior IPRs · same examiner

2 · 1 instituted

Likelihood of institution

High

Petition draft staged

Discovery, expert prep, and trial drafting all run from the same case file the chart was built on.

Portfolio · 08 · Family tracking

Patent families with national-stage entries and continuations visible.

Priority chains, divisional and continuation lineage, foreign filings, and PCT national-stage status stay connected. The family view draws from the same firm system as prosecution and enforcement.

Patent family · IDF-2026-0148

5 members · 4 jurisdictions
US 12,034,567parent
US 17,890,123continuation
EP 3,456,789foreign
JP 2026-148291foreign
CN 202680123foreign

Granted

2

Pending

3

Validated countries

3

Same firm system

Prosecution, enforcement, and portfolio reads from the same family graph. No double entry.

Portfolio · 09 · Maintenance + FTO

Maintenance windows tracked. FTO analysis preserved with its reasoning.

Maintenance fee deadlines can stay visible across jurisdictions. Freedom-to-operate work can keep searched references, claim mappings, and reasoning preserved for the firm.

Maintenance + FTO

Cross-jurisdiction

Upcoming maintenance

US 12,034,5672030-04-22
3.5 yr feeOn track
EP 3,456,789 · DE2027-01-15
AnnuityDue soon
JP 2026-1482912027-08-30
AnnuityOn track

FTO clearance

“thermal redistribution layer”

Clear · 4 references reviewed

“parallel substrate stack”

Watch · 1 close reference

Clearance memo staged

Searched references, claim mappings, and reasoning preserved for the firm.

Portfolio · 10 · Licensing / monetization

Licensing and monetization work stays tied to the asset.

Licensee context, licensing terms, and related portfolio history can stay tied to the asset so later commercial work starts informed.

Licensing pipeline · IDF-2026-0148 family

SEP candidate · monitored
NorthArc SemiconductorsTerm sheet$1.4M
Vertex MicrosystemsNegotiation$2.2M
PrismCoreRoyalty audit$0.8M / yr

Renegotiation history attached

Royalty audits, prior term sheets, and SEP mappings stay with the asset. The next deal starts informed.

IP specialist work

The IP work that decides outcomes.

Claim charts. Office action responses. Application drafting. Portfolio and FTO. These are the workflows that decide whether IP work moves forward cleanly. Specialists prepare. Attorneys approve.

Claim chart builder.

Element-by-element mapping with confidence indicators and pre-staged evidence for review.

[1.1] semiconductor deviceDatasheet p.4
96%
[1.2] substrateDatasheet p.6
92%
[1.3] parallel bonding structuresTeardown fig 3
88%
[1.4] hexagonal latticeTeardown fig 7
64%
[1.5] thermal interfaceNot disclosed
12%

Match

3

Partial

1

No match

1

Office action response.

Multi-source citations with examiner-specific firm patterns surfaced for review.

Examiner cite

Tereck (US 2006/0214480)

File wrapper

Tereck prosecution history

Case law

In re Suitco (Fed. Cir. 2010)

Firm pattern

Examiner Patel · 4 prior allowances

Response strategy staged

Argue structural distinction with In re Suitco. Amend claim 1 to recite parallel arrangement. Cite firm pattern from prior allowances.

Invention disclosure to application.

Inventor disclosure becomes a structured claim tree, specification, and figure callouts in the firm system.

Disclosure → fields populated

Purpose
Challenges
Prior review
Innovation
Comparative
Unique aspect

Claim tree · building

Claim 1 · Independent
Claim 2 · Dependent on 1
Claim 3 · Dependent on 1
Claim 4 · Independent (method)

Specification draft staged

6 paragraphs drafted in firm style. Attorney review pending.

Portfolio + freedom-to-operate.

Family graph with national stages, maintenance windows, and FTO clearance memos in one place.

Family · IDF-2026-0148

5 members

US

Granted

EP

Granted

JP

Pending

CN

Pending

KR

Filed

Maintenance windows

US 12,034,567 · 3.5 yr fee2030-04-22
EP 3,456,789 · DE annuity2027-01-15

FTO clearance · “thermal redistribution layer”

4 references reviewed · clearance memo staged.

Multi-jurisdictional drafting

One disclosure. Every jurisdiction your firm files in.

USPTO, EPO, CIPO, and JPO drafting variations generated from one source disclosure. Firm style, attorney preferences, and jurisdictional defaults applied per filing. Nothing leaves the firm without sign-off.

Multi-jurisdictional drafting

One disclosure. Four jurisdictions. Firm style preserved.

Source disclosure

IDF-2026-0148

Semiconductor device with parallel-connected bonding structures

Purpose
Challenges
Innovation
Unique aspect
US
USPTODrafted

Means-plus-function support · 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)

EU
EPODrafted

Two-part form · problem-solution

CA
CIPODrafted

Modified description · Canadian style

JP
JPODrafted

Translated · figure callouts adjusted

All four staged for review

Jurisdictional defaults, attorney style, and firm preferences applied per filing. Nothing leaves the firm without sign-off.

Specialists, step by step

Concrete IP work, end to end.

Two of the most demanding pieces of IP work shown step by step. Claim construction packets compiled inside the case file. Scheduling orders parsed into a structured timeline with PTAB cross-references.

Claim construction support

Disputed terms compiled inside the case file, not assembled across tools.

Intrinsic record cites, opposing proposals, prior construction history, and exhibits get assembled into one reviewable packet so the attorney works from organized work product.

The case file holds the briefing context, the specialist stages the construction packet, and the attorney approves what moves forward.

Claim construction support

Disputed terms compiled inside the case file, not assembled across tools.

Docket specialist

Scheduling orders become a structured case timeline.

Upload the scheduling order. The Docket Specialist reads it, extracts every deadline and milestone, and writes them into the case timeline tied to the right phase.

Parallel proceedings can be reviewed against the same timeline so deadline conflicts surface earlier instead of being discovered late.

Docket specialist

Scheduling orders become a structured case timeline.

Approved IP work compounds

Your firm gets sharper with every prosecuted patent and resolved enforcement.

Examiner-specific patterns, prior claim charts, and prior FTO work remain available to the firm on the next matter. Your firm only. Never blended across the platform.

Approved IP work compounds

Your firm only. Never blended across the platform.

Examiner response patterns

Examiner Patel · 26324/5

Structural distinction emphasis · 80% allowance

Examiner Chen · 28913/4

Citation-backed amendment · 75% allowance

Examiner Martinez · 36772/3

Specification narrowing · 67% allowance

Claim chart history

SyncSport · PulseEdge 5

Settled · $1.4M

MaxStride · FitFusion

Settled · license

AeroFit · MotionSphere

Pending

Invalidity contentions reused

JP 2003-148921 · base layer5×
Tereck + Patel obviousness3×
Indefiniteness · “parallel”2×

Applied to next case

The next office action response pre-loads Examiner Patel’s pattern. The next claim chart starts with your prior infringement narrative. The next IPR petition reuses validated grounds.

Patents, prosecuted. Patents, enforced.

Drafting, office actions, claim charts, invalidity, and PTAB work on one IP system. Specialists prepare the work product. Attorneys approve.

See Matters