Prosecution is only half the picture. When a competitor's application threatens your freedom to operate — or when counsel needs the technical groundwork for a dispute — the same examiner's-eye view applies.
The skills that make a patent prosecution practice strong — reading claims precisely, understanding the technology as an engineer, knowing how examiners evaluate novelty and obviousness — are the same skills that make challenge and litigation support work effective.
Whether the goal is stopping a competitor's application before it grants, putting prior art before a European examiner, or building the technical groundwork that litigation counsel needs, the approach is the same: careful, technically grounded, and built around the facts.
USPTO
Once a competitor's application publishes, prior art can be placed directly in the examiner's hands — before claims harden into a granted patent you have to design around.
We identify the published application, assemble the most relevant patents, published applications, and printed publications, and file them under 37 CFR § 1.290 with a concise statement of relevance for each reference. The examiner is then required to consider the cited art — shaping the claim scope before allowance.
The window closes at the earlier of a notice of allowance, or the later of six months after publication or the first rejection of any claim. A first Office action does not automatically close the window — it is often still open through early prosecution.
EPO
For European counterparts, third-party observations and post-grant oppositions coordinated end to end with European patent attorneys.
Third-party observations under Art. 115 EPC put prior art before the examining division while an application is still pending. After grant, opposition under Art. 99 EPC is the central route to narrowing or revoking a European patent across every designated state in a single proceeding — rather than country by country.
Litigation Support
Element-by-element claim charts for litigation counsel, mapping individual claim limitations against accused products or prior art references.
Charts are built on the same technical fluency that drives prosecution — the ability to read a claim and a real system side by side and say precisely where they meet and where they don't. They are prepared at the direction of litigation counsel and delivered as engineering work product.
Charts present technical validity comparisons only — claim elements against references or products. They contain no infringement opinions or legal conclusions. That analysis stays with counsel.
Book a free 30-minute call to discuss your situation and whether a preissuance submission or challenge proceeding makes sense.
Book a Free Discovery Call