IP Readiness Assessment
A pre-diligence review that identifies which IP claims are supported by evidence today, where gaps or ambiguity exist, and what would likely surface under fundraising, partnerships, or transactions.
Evidence mapped before conclusions. Unknowns labeled. Scope locked.
Decision support, not authority.
How this is used
This work is structured to support internal decision-making and focused conversations with counsel. It makes explicit what is supported, what is not, and where further review would be required.
Primary question
What IP claims can we credibly stand behind today?
Deliverable
A 6-10 page concise decision brief that separates supported claims, gaps, and uncertainty, with clear next-step prioritization.
Best Used
Before engaging external counsel.
What this is
- An evidence-based assessment of IP claims and obligations
- A readiness check for diligence, fundraising, or partnerships
- A structured way to identify unsupported, weakly supported, or ambiguous IP representations
- A prioritization of what to fix now vs. what can wait
- A clear trail of what is known, unknown, and assumed
What this is not
- Legal advice or a legal opinion
- Patent validity or enforceability analysis
- Infringement or freedom-to-operate opinions
- Claim construction or claim charting
- A substitute for counsel or technical specialists
What you receive
Readiness Brief (6–10 pages)
- Executive summary with top risks and what is safe to represent today
- Asserted IP claims (from deck, data room, or internal statements)
- Claim-by-claim evidence sufficiency: supported / partially supported / unsupported
- Ownership and control signals (presence and obvious gaps only)
- High-level obligation signals and escalation points
- Diligence stress test: likely questions and what can / cannot be answered today
- Prioritized fix list: fix before diligence / fix if time allows / monitor
- Explicit scope and limits section
What success looks like
You can answer, with evidence:
- What IP claims are safe to stand behind today
- What would break under scrutiny
- What evidence is missing or ambiguous
- What to fix before representation matters
Scope is locked before review.
Evidence is mapped before conclusions. Unknowns are labeled. Output is decision support, not authority.