Drafts engineered to hold their ground.
Every claim we ship has been stress-tested against the attack paths that matter — examination, opposition, IPR, UPC, twenty years of post-grant pressure. The defenses are built into the wording at draft time. The methodology is reserved.
Drafts engineered to survive — not just to be granted.
Hardened by construction, not by review
Defenses are baked into the wording at draft time — not bolted on by a partner billing $1,200/hr after the fact. Every clause earns its place in the cascade.
Stress-tested against real attack paths
Calibrated against the rejection patterns examiners and opponents actually run — §103 obviousness, §112 enablement, EPO Art.83 sufficiency, opposition windows, IPR precedent. We pre-empt what we've seen break claims in practice.
Layered claim architecture
Narrow species claim survives if the broad genus falls. Independent claim survives if a dependent claim is invalidated. Designed so a single bad day in prosecution doesn't collapse the entire portfolio.
Multi-jurisdiction conformance
What works at INPI may collapse at EPO; what survives USPTO §103 may fail at UPC for added matter. The platform writes once and conforms to each office's failure surface.
Built to hold for the full term
The test isn't grant — it's holding through 20 years of post-grant pressure. Opposition. IPR. UPC. Every clause is drafted to the standard a litigator would draft it to defend.
The doctrine itself is reserved
We don't sell the rulebook. We sell drafts that pass through it. Every claim ships with the prior art it clears cited verbatim — auditable. The methodology stays with us.
- Anti-admission language throughout the Background — no §103 hand-grenades left for the examiner
- Every claim term defined in the spec — no §112 enablement gaps when the case-law shifts
- Markush genera with the right number of species — neither thin (invalidated for trivial breadth) nor bloated (rejected for non-unity)
- Every disclosed effect explicitly invokable — post-published evidence won't have to rescue you in opposition
- Layered claim cascade — independent, sub-genus, picture, method-of-use, dosage form — so one rejection doesn't end the family
- Range cascading on every numerical limit — preserves narrowing room without surrendering breadth
Why the doctrine stays reserved.
The value isn't in knowing the rulebook — it's in applying it consistently, at scale, across every claim, in every jurisdiction. Codifying a hundred years of patent practice into the platform is what made this possible.
Publishing the doctrine would let competitors build the same rigour without the work. So we don't. We sell the drafts that pass through it — auditable, citable, granted-and-held — and the rulebook stays with us.