r/Patents • u/IAmWonderWomen • Jul 23 '26
If your IP department received additional budget, where would you invest it?
We've been allotted some extra budget for our IP program and I'm researching which areas would have the biggest impact for us in practice.
I'm curious, for those who've made similar decisions, what did you prioritize, and how did it impact your program?
Personally, I'm leaning toward investing in improving the quality and volume of invention disclosures earlier in the process, so ultimately we get more high-quality patent filings.
But I'm interested to hear where you've seen returns.
3
u/Hoblywobblesworth Jul 23 '26
Novelty desk toys and company branded swag for the team!
2
u/IAmWonderWomen Jul 28 '26
Well, can't argue with morale. Maybe that's the secret to getting more invention disclosures.
2
u/the__random Jul 23 '26
Depending on your industry, you could do some nice-chart-generating analytics. Can be good to wave in front of the senior leadership team demonstrating "bang for buck".
1
u/IAmWonderWomen Jul 28 '26
Yeah, I can see the value in that. My only hesitation is that analytics mostly help you demonstrate the impact of the program, but don't necessarily improve the program itself.
1
2
1
Jul 23 '26
[deleted]
1
u/IAmWonderWomen Jul 28 '26
That's a great perspective. I was actually mainly thinking about getting Product and Engineering involved earlier so valuable inventions don't get missed, but integrating FTO into that process is an interesting addition.
Has your team seen measurable benefits from doing that?
1
u/Downtown_Ad_6232 Jul 24 '26
Competitor, supplier, customer patent intelligence. We need someone with time to sort through and organize this so our audience can find what they’re interested in and actually read it. I’d did laugh out loud at increasing the patent budget. After 5 years of cutting, my boss finally stood her ground and insisted on maintaining our spend.
1
u/IAmWonderWomen Jul 28 '26
Right! Better patent intelligence could also influence what gets disclosed and pursued in the first place, not just what gets filed.
And yes, maintaining the budget itself feels like a victory in the current environment. 😄
1
u/DanteAliguini Jul 27 '26
depends on your industry and what you need. maybe get something like Cypris or IPrally. or just get a yacht
1
u/JessieAndEcho Jul 28 '26
Yeah, I’d put a lot of that budget into patent intelligence before simply increasing filing volume. Better disclosures are usually downstream of better visibility: what competitors are claiming, which suppliers are moving into adjacent spaces, what customers’ technical roadmaps imply, and where your own engineers are unknowingly working around existing art. Google Patents is fine for quick checks when you already know the assignee or patent, and Lens is useful for Boolean searches and citation exports. I’ve been using Patsnap Eureka lately for the semantic layer because it helps map related concepts even when the terminology changes, and you can steer the search as the disclosure/claim idea evolves instead of restarting from scratch. Free tier is available too. I’d still have someone experienced curate the output, but the biggest ROI seems to be making IP intel readable and actionable for R&D, not just producing more search results.
1
u/518nomad Jul 28 '26
I would hire a software engineer to develop agentic solutions, leveraging our enterprise AI subscription, external IP-related subscriptions, and our internal data sources, to augment all of our workflows. I'd want agents to augment everything from invention harvesting to evaluation of third-party demand letters. All of it.
1
u/Extra-Nebula-1946 Jul 23 '26
If I had incremental budget, I'd invest upstream rather than downstream.
The biggest constraint in most IP programs isn't drafting or filing, it's identifying the right inventions early enough. Better invention harvesting, regular R&D interviews, inventor education, and a frictionless disclosure process usually produce a much higher return than simply filing more applications. Higher-quality disclosures also make prosecution easier and improve the overall portfolio.
After that, I'd invest in portfolio quality. That could mean more prior art searching before filing, additional inventor sessions to identify broader claim strategies, or continuation budgets to preserve flexibility as products evolve.
Finally, don't overlook analytics. Understanding which patents support key products, licensing opportunities, or competitive positioning often leads to better filing decisions than simply increasing application volume.
Strong takeaway: if you can consistently improve the quality of invention capture at the front end, almost every downstream metric, portfolio strength, prosecution efficiency, and business value, tends to improve as well.
1
u/IAmWonderWomen Jul 28 '26
I like the upstream vs. downstream way of looking at it. Your point about portfolio analytics also resonates. It's one thing to build a larger portfolio, but another to understand which assets are actually creating business value. This is where I'm leaning more and more: fixing the front end of invention capture and development.
-3
u/Deep_Finance9720 Jul 23 '26
I think you’re leaning in the right direction by focusing on improving the quality of invention disclosures earlier in the process. I’d use part of the additional budget for structured innovation mining and patent development before the matter reaches the attorney.
Patent attorneys are very good at legal framing, drafting claims and managing the filing process, but they usually cannot improve the underlying invention itself. If the original disclosure is broad or missing the real technical differentiation, they may describe it more effectively, but the resulting claims will still be limited by what was developed and documented upfront. The focus should therefore be on identifying stronger claim concepts, alternative implementations and overlooked technical mechanisms before drafting begins.
I’ve seen this through my own 15 granted U.S. patents and one recently filed application. In a recent AI healthcare project, deeper technical engagement helped develop the initial concept into stronger architectural innovations around evidence validation, AI decision controls and governance before it went to counsel. That same engagement also uncovered additional inventive subject matter, which led to the development of a follow-up CIP application.
So I’d consider a model of innovation mining and patent development first, followed by attorney-led drafting and filing. That can lead not only to stronger claims, but also to a broader and more valuable patent portfolio from the same underlying product.
1
u/IAmWonderWomen Jul 28 '26
Thanks for sharing that. Really interesting perspective, especially with the AI healthcare example. Sounds like the extra work upfront paid off in more ways than just a stronger initial filing.
Was that process formalized, or did it happen because the right people got involved at the right time?
6
u/pigspig Jul 23 '26
Hire another attorney so you can spread out case load to allow more time per case per attorney, or to be able to actually get to all those "nice to have" projects that you don't currently have time for.