Every patent draft we deliver for your review ships with an attorney brief — the strategic thinking behind your application, written down.
Drafted in the same structure your senior partner would write — but generated, cited, and assembled in hours, not weeks. Every section maps to a real prosecution decision.
How this filing fits the portfolio: business objective, fit against existing IP, and why the spend is justified now. Written so a non-lawyer board member could approve it.
Plain-English problem / solution / "secret sauce." Three load-bearing distinguishing characteristics that anchor the non-obviousness position before the application is ever drafted.
Independent claim breakdown with explicit positioning rationale, dependent ladder, and consolidated closest-prior-art mapping by topic area — so reviewers see why each claim sits where it sits.
§112 enablement, written-description, and functional-limitation risks — each paired with a specific Reviewer Action. §103 obviousness anticipation. Restriction-and-divisional planning before the office action arrives.
From engagement letter to filed patent.
60% cost savings compared to comparable filings at an AmLaw 200 firm.
Average rating from in-house teams after receiving the Tradespace filing package.
Briefs are written for the human who will sign off — clear "Reviewer Action" callouts on every risk, no buried decisions.
References grouped by topic cluster with claim-positioning rationale, not a wall of citation strings.
Divisional and continuation plan flagged in the pre-filing memo so spec content seeds future filings.
Registered patent attorneys review every brief and every application before it reaches your inbox. Privileged. Work-product protected.
Technology Transfer Associate, University of Alaska Fairbanks
Both, in that order. Tradespace agents draft the brief sections from your invention disclosure and our prior-art retrieval. A registered patent attorney reviews, edits, and signs off before anything reaches your inbox. The brief is privileged and produced under attorney supervision — same standard as outside counsel work product.
General-purpose models don't know MPEP §2164 from §2173, don't ground citations to the actual claim language, and don't separate apparatus from method claims when planning divisionals. Our agents are built around the prosecution decisions a senior partner makes — and the output is reviewed by an attorney who carries the work product.
The brief is the strategic memo; the application is the legal instrument. The brief is written first — it locks the claim architecture, distinguishing characteristics, and §112/§103 positioning before a single line of spec is drafted. Every section in the application can be traced back to a decision recorded in the brief.
Managed Filing covers the disclosure-to-filing path. Prosecution is offered as a separate engagement, and many customers run it with their existing outside counsel — the brief is structured to hand off cleanly to whoever takes the office actions.
The sample is based on a fictional invention modeled on real technical territory. Structure, section length, and risk-analysis depth match what a customer receives. Names, company, and any identifying details are placeholders.
Yes. Our sales team can share additional redacted briefs across every technology area we file in — software and AI/ML, semiconductors, energy and climate hardware, life sciences, materials, and more. Just ask after you receive the sample.