Free Consultation

Cost-Saving Support for Startups

Cash is critical for startups. We offer an additional 20% discount on flat fees if you provide a draft specification and drawings. Our team will review, revise, add claims, and prepare the formal application for filing.

We’ve also created a tutorial for startups and solo inventors on how to draft a patent application, based on my own startup experience.

Note:

  1. Formal drawing fees are not included.

  2. USPTO government fees are billed separately.

Tutorial for Drafting Patents Specialized for Start-Ups

1. Title - Avoid Excessive Precision
  • General Rule:
    • The title should be precise to the invention. Avoid vague boilerplate like “system and method for…” and generic terms like “best” or “novel.”
  • My Recommendation:
    • Do not be overly precise. For instance, the title of the ‘343 Patent is “Beverage Brewing System.” A more specific title like “Coffee Brewing System” might wrongly imply that tea is excluded. Similarly, “Beverage Machine System” might suggest the patent covers only the brewer, excluding pods or software. While these nuances may not pose a major issue, they could be exploited during litigation, forcing you to spend money defending the title’s scope. For startups, large competitors can outspend you, leading to unfavorable settlements. Later, another recommendation is to draft an omnibus or all-inclusive patent for start-ups, so the title needs to be broad to save costs.
  • General Rule:
    • It should be a concise paragraph that identifies the general technical area of the invention. Avoid disclosing the novelty or specific solutions, but that belongs in the Summary.
  • My Recommendation:
    • I agreed to the general rule; however, briefly describe only the minimum structure necessary to practice your invention. If additional parts are not necessary, remove them and reintroduce them in an alternate embodiment. And, describe the problem and how your invention will solve this issue
  • General Rule:
    • Briefly describe the technical field and prior art, calling out key references and their shortcomings. Keep it short, and misstatements can hurt you.
  • My Recommendation:
    • For startups, the first goal is to raise funds. Expand on the problem your invention addresses and highlight the dominance of market leaders. Do NOT suggest the solution in this section because the Examiner may construe that the solution is in the background section, so it may be prior art to your invention. Also, mention the market size (as I did with Keurig in the ‘343 Patent). Investors often skip the claims/specifications and only read the background and summary because they are more accessible. Whatever you write here must be truthful; therefore, the falsehoods will be challenged. Investors trust what’s in the patent more than pitch decks, so they will more likely read the background and summary, and are more likely to believe what you said in the patent. In my experience, this strategy helped me raise over $1.0 million to fund litigation for the ‘343 Patent.
  • General Rule:
    • Provide a clear, concise summary of how the invention solves the problem identified in the background.
  • My Recommendation:
    • While I agree with the general rule, avoid overly technical descriptions. Write this section like a marketing pitch, and why your solution works and how it solves the earlier problem. Again, the investors may be more likely to read this section.
  • General Rule:
    • Include drawings that explicitly show each feature recited in the claims.
  • My Recommendation:
    • I agree with the general rule, but also recommend including alternate drawings not initially claimed. In my case, the earlier ‘343 application has good claims, but after investigating the Keurig’s Vue® brewer, which brewed both K-Cups® and Vue Cups, I filed expedited new patent applications that claim the Vue Brewer, which avoids the prior art and is particularly applicable to the Vue Brewer. This wouldn’t have been possible without the original application having alternate drawings, so that I could support the new claims.
  • General Rule:
    • Fully describe how to make and use the invention so a person skilled in the art can reproduce it without undue experimentation.
    • Disclose the best mode. That means you cannot keep a trade secret for the best method of practicing the invention; you must disclose it. The bargain you have with the government is that you have to disclose the best way to practice the invention, and you will have the exclusion of someone else practicing your invention for a certain time.
    • Support each claim term with a consistent explanation and tie it to the figures.
  • My Recommendation:
    • I agreed with the general rule, and for the start-ups, there are more suggestions.
    • Filing an omnibus or all-inclusive broad patent application that covers multiple variations (embodiments) of your invention in one filing may save costs; rather than filing separate applications for each version.  However, each embodiment needs to be related to the overall invention.  Refer to the ‘343 Patent, where the coffee brewer is associated with the pod and the packaging machine. 
    • Each embodiment describes only the minimum structure necessary. If additional parts aren’t essential, remove them and reintroduce them in an alternate embodiment.
    • Provide alternative terminology for critical structures. In the ‘343 Patent, “needle” was used to inject the hot water into the K-Cup. Keurig claimed their Vue Brewer used a “puncture,” not a needle. Though we won, it cost $300K to fight that point. When I was drafting this patent, I thought “needle” was a simple structure, and I did not give an alternative name.  This was an expensive lesson.
    • Amgen v. Sanofi (May 2023), your specification must enable the full scope of any claims. Broad claims require supporting data, examples, or disclosure covering the breadth claimed. With the ’343 Patent, see Table 1, which has a table of how the Keurig Brewer performed.  This was a simple experiment that supported the claims.  Also, when the Examiner sees that the description has data in your patent application, it feels that it is a solid patent and it will take it more seriously. 
    • Avoid limiting words like “must,” “only,” “critical,” “essential,” or “have to.” Use flexible terms like “preferably,” “such as,” “for example,” and “may be.” This keeps the claims broad and less vulnerable.
  • General Rule:
    • Claims define what others can’t do. Use broad, functional language (e.g., “fastening means” vs. “screw”) and support all terms in the specification.
    • Provide multiple layers: broad independent claims supported by narrower dependent claims to protect different fallback positions.
    • Draft with claim construction in mind: examiners apply the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, while courts use the specification as the primary interpretive guide.
  • My Recommendation:
    • Drafting claims is a complex process, and you need a lot of experience to draft a good claim. We will draft them, and you don’t have to. However, please you should define the core structure needed for the invention by eliminating what you don’t need, then provide 3 to 4 alternative embodiments. I will convert these into strong claims.
 
  • General Rule:
    • A well-drafted abstract (≤150 words) gives a high-level view of the invention without limiting the scope. It’s useful for public searchers and examiners.
  • My Recommendation:
    • I agreed with the general rule; however, do not put limiting words in the abstract, as we already talked about. The abstract is in front of the patent, so what I do is that when we have a prior art search, the first thing I read is the abstract to see if it is relevant.  Again, this is the elevator pitch, so make it count. 

The buttons below provide a Word document tutorial on drafting a patent design for Start-Ups, along with a patent application template.

Tutorial For Drafting Patent
Template for Patent application

Real Answers From Experience, Not AI

Who has the right to a patent if there are two inventors, where A is the first to invent but files later than B?

It depends on the timing. Under today’s U.S. patent law (America Invents Act, 2013), the system is first-to-file, not first-to-invent.

  • If B filed before 2013, the “first-to-invent” rule applies, and A could win if A can prove earlier invention.
  • If B and A both file after 2013, the “first-to-file” rule applies, and B wins (assuming B’s application meets all patentability requirements).

Exception – Derivation Proceedings: If Inventor B files first but actually derived (stole or copied) the invention from Inventor A, then A can challenge B’s application through a derivation proceeding at the USPTO. To win, A must provide evidence (e.g., lab notebooks, emails, drafts) showing that B’s filing was not original but taken from A.

There are three key factors:

a. Claims. The most important thing is a strong claims define the boundaries of the patent. A good patent has claims broad enough to cover competitors but narrow enough to survive challenges.

b. Specification. The second is that the patent must clearly teach how to make and use the invention (enablement). If the description is vague, incomplete, or claims more than what was invented, the patent is weak.

c. Defensibility. The third is that a strong patent can withstand attacks in court or USPTO challenges (such as IPRs). If prior art can easily invalidate it, the patent is not strong.

No. Ford’s claim requires four wheels. Davidson’s motorcycle has only two wheels. Because the claims do not overlap, Davidson’s patent does not infringe Ford’s patent. Both Ford and Davidson can practice their inventions.

Yes. Ford’s Model T includes two wheels (plus two more), so it still falls within Davidson’s claim.

What happens then? Courts rarely order destruction of infringing products. Instead, the parties typically negotiate a licensing agreement, where the losing party pays royalties. A modern parallel occurred in 2018, when Samsung copied Apple’s iPhone and ultimately settled through a licensing deal.

Yes. Example: A unicycle patent claiming an engine, a transmission, and one wheel. If this claim were allowed, both Ford and Davidson would infringe the unicycle patent. This shows why strong patents often use broader claims—sometimes, less is more.

No. Infringement is determined only by the claims, not by the specification or examples. The specification supports the claims but does not expand them.

However, there are strategies. The USPTO has a “Track One” priority examination program where, by paying an additional fee, you can receive a decision in about one year instead of 3–5 years. For example, when Keurig introduced a new brewer, my specification covered the brewer but my claims did not. Because I still had the chance, I filed a new application with claims covering Keurig’s brewer and used Track One to expedite the process. With this strong patent, we reached a favorable settlement.

Not exactly. A patent gives you the right to exclude others, not the right to practice your invention.  

  • Example 1 (Question 3): Ford’s four-wheel car patent cannot stop Davidson’s two-wheel motorcycle patent. Both can practice their inventions because neither infringes on the other.
  • Example 2 (Question 4): Ford’s four-wheel patent infringes Davidson’s earlier two-wheel patent. Ford cannot practice his invention unless he either (1) redesigns his car (e.g., replacing the transmission with a chain drive) or (2) negotiates a licensing agreement with Davidson.

It depends on your circumstances.

Provisional Patent Applications:

  • Cheaper and faster to prepare than utility patents.
  • Lock in an early filing date (important under the current first-to-file system). Filing before disclosing to suppliers, manufacturers, or foreign partners (like in China) is often critical. A strong Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) is also recommended.
  • Useful for startups that pivot often. Filing a provisional is a cost-effective way to protect new iterations without paying for a full utility application each time.

Example: My patent 9,144,343 relied on four different provisional applications. You can see this in the “Related U.S. Application Data” section of the patent.

Utility Patent Applications:

-Stronger protection. A utility application gets examined, can be granted, and can be enforced.

-Recommended strategy for startups is to file an omnibus utility patent (an all-inclusive application) that covers multiple technologies. This reduces cost compared to filing several separate patents. Later, you can file divisional patents (children of the omnibus) if needed, as long as the parent specification supports the claims.

-This strategy signals to competitors that you have a broad patent portfolio. If they try to copy, you can file an expedited application and negotiate from strength.

Example: I used this strategy with patent 9,144,343. Along with three other patents, it was enforced against Keurig® and resulted in a multi-million-dollar settlement.

A design patent protects how something looks (shape, packaging, or visual features), not how it works.

Pros: Useful for unique product appearances, branding, or lock-and-key systems where multiple designs can be protected.

Cons: Competitors can easily design around them. Designs often change before launch, making them less valuable for startups.

In most cases, I don’t recommend design patents unless your business depends on the appearance of your product.

Yes, filing in China is important because their patent laws differ significantly from U.S. laws.

  • In China, inventorship rules are less strict, and patents are granted faster (12–18 months).
  • A supplier or third party could file a similar patent in China, then raise prices or block your exports later.
  • The same applies to trademarks—if you don’t file in China, a third party might, which could prevent you from shipping products out of China.

The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) allows you to file a single international application and reserve rights in many countries. It gives you a global filing date and up to 30 months to decide where to enter national filings.

I recommend PCT filings if patents are a core part of your business. Otherwise, skip it, because filing national applications is very expensive.

Yes, but only if you are selling in that country. National stage filings are expensive and only make sense when you have actual market activity in that jurisdiction.

Yes. Drawings are required to meet USPTO standards. They also make your application easier to understand for examiners, judges, and even investors. Good drawings simplify prosecution and may reduce fees.

An Office Action is a written response from the USPTO examiner when they reject or question your application. You must reply with arguments or claim amendments.

  • Most applications face at least two Office Actions.
  • Strong patents get through with minimal amendments.
  • Lots of amendments mean your invention is too close to prior art, limiting your patent’s scope.
  • Some examiners are stricter than others, so overcoming rejections may take time and expense.

This step is critical in determining whether your patent ends up strong or weak.

A patentability search analyzes prior art to estimate whether your invention is likely to be patentable. It’s useful, but not definitive—examiners may still find new prior art.

An infringement study checks if your product might infringe existing patents.

  • For startups with no sales, it’s usually too expensive.
  • If you’re taking market share from a big player, then it’s worth the cost. Sometimes, we can also identify weaknesses in the competitor’s patent and redesign to avoid infringement.

Note: We usually partner with other firms to conduct full infringement studies.

An IDS is a formal list of related prior art submitted to the USPTO. By law, you must disclose prior art you know about. Failing to do so can invalidate your patent.

An assignment is the legal transfer of patent ownership to a company, investor, or another individual.

The issue fee is the government fee due after your patent is allowed. You must pay it before your patent is officially granted.

Maintenance fees are required to keep your utility patent alive. They are due at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years after the grant date.

Protect your invention,
back by our service guarantee!

Contact Us
Patent-$tartUp

Patents for Start-Ups, drafted to raise capital without high costs

E: admin@patentstartup.com
P: (626) 827-6204