Patent portfolio & ongoing counsel
Patent portfolio and ongoing counsel for technology companies.
For established and mid-sized software and AI companies, Parti & Oliveira PLLC provides U.S. patent counsel for new applications and ongoing USPTO examination. Work directly with Vik Parti on application preparation, examiner responses, and filing decisions as products develop. Each matter has an agreed scope and fee arrangement.
Whether your company is developing a new platform or reassessing existing applications, the engagement begins with a defined scope and the decisions the work needs to support.
Recurring innovation
Connect individual matters to the wider portfolio.
A new application and an examiner response can affect the same product strategy. Consider their purpose, timing, and cost together.
Identify technical developments.
After engagement, review product changes with the people developing the technology. Identify technical contributions, contributors, and information needed to evaluate a potential filing.
Software and AI patent workPrioritize applications.
Consider upcoming releases, disclosures, commercial objectives, and existing filings. Evaluate application options and whether additional filings or a continuation strategy may be appropriate.
Patent application servicesReassess pending claims.
Review examiner positions, proposed amendments, and further prosecution against current business priorities. Changes to the product or market may change the next decision.
Office Action responsesProduct roadmap
Start with the decisions ahead.
A defined portfolio review can consider current products, planned improvements, existing applications, and approaching deadlines. Useful questions include:
- Which technical features support the product’s commercial position?
- How do planned changes relate to earlier disclosures and filings?
- Which applications require a decision or further expense?
- What information is needed before committing to the next task?
For a software or AI company, this may mean distinguishing a new technical implementation from a feature already described in an earlier filing. For a product company, it may involve considering improvements across successive versions and the information supporting each proposed application.
The aim is an informed sequence of work. An application count alone does not explain how a portfolio supports the business.
Explore U.S. patent servicesInternational coordination
U.S. counsel within a broader plan.
For companies outside the United States, we provide agreed U.S. application work, PCT national-stage entry, and USPTO prosecution. We can coordinate with foreign patent counsel around existing filings, relevant dates, and commercial priorities.
U.S. patent rights are territorial. Work in other jurisdictions requires separate consideration and appropriately qualified counsel there.
U.S. patent services for international companiesHypothetical company examples
New software and AI filings and the work that follows
New patent filings and applications already under examination create different decisions for a software or AI company. These hypothetical situations illustrate how technical development, prosecution, and business priorities can affect the next scope of work.
These examples are hypothetical, not client matters or promised outcomes.
A new software or AI development
A company introduces a different processing architecture or technical implementation in its software or AI product. After engagement, a review can compare the changes with earlier filings, planned disclosures, and the technical detail available to support a potential application. The question is whether the development warrants a new filing and what information is needed to evaluate that choice.
An examiner response on a pending application
A software or AI company receives a USPTO Office Action. Within an agreed engagement, the actual notice, cited references, pending claims, and application disclosure inform the evaluation of possible arguments or amendments. Current product priorities help frame the decision, while the application record and deadlines require their own review.
New filings alongside pending applications
A company is developing two possible software or AI filings while an existing application requires an examiner response. Known deadlines, technical readiness, commercial relevance, and expected attorney fees, government charges, and outside expenses help frame the sequence of work. Each filing and response still needs its own assessment and agreed scope.
Initial inquiries should remain general and nonconfidential. Substantive technical review begins after representation, scope, and fees are confirmed.
Scope and budget
Define the work before it begins.
We discuss proposed tasks, deliverables, and the fee approach before engagement. Defined work may suit a flat fee; broader matters may call for staged or hourly work. Government charges and outside expenses are considered separately.
For continuing work, each additional application, response, or review needs an agreed scope. Possible installment arrangements depend on the matter and written terms; they do not extend filing deadlines.
Patent costs and payment optionsA defined next step
Discuss your company’s patent priorities.
Start with your company, general technology area, requested work, and known deadlines. Keep the initial inquiry nonconfidential. Substantive technical review begins after representation, scope, and fees are confirmed; confidential material is shared through the firm’s agreed process. Contacting the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship.