Why Competitive Intelligence Belongs in Prosecution, Not After Grant
Mapping pending claims to competitor products while claim scope can still change is the difference between a portfolio that covers the market and one that documents an idea.
The conventional approach leaves value on the table
Most firms treat competitor analysis as a post-grant exercise. By the time a patent issues, the claims are fixed, and the window to shape them has closed. The result is a portfolio that documents inventions rather than covering the products that matter in the market.
Prosecution is where leverage exists
During prosecution, claim scope can still be amended. That is the moment to map pending claims against what competitors are actually selling. Shaping claim scope in light of the market, while it can still change, is how a portfolio is built to cover the market.
What it takes
This work requires technical depth, an understanding of the engineering behind the claims, and a willingness to treat a portfolio as an asset under active management. It is not a one-time review. It is a discipline applied throughout prosecution.
[PLACEHOLDER: expand with further detail.]