Five things we have actually done.
Not logos. What the work was, what came out, and what you can check. Where a client has not cleared its name for publication we describe the engagement and withhold the company — the named case files are available under NDA.
A full-lifecycle IP programme, built and run
At Element3 we built and ran the whole lifecycle rather than a stage of it — invention capture, prosecution strategy, portfolio structure, and the commercial decisions that sit on top of a patent estate.
It matters here because most providers do one end. Prosecution firms file; monetisation shops license. Running both is what makes it possible to look at a target's estate and say what it is actually worth defending, which is a different question from whether the filings are valid.
Patent capability stood up at scale
At Adeia we stood up patent capability across 4,000+ patents in 68 domains. Scale of that kind forces a particular discipline: at four thousand assets you cannot reason case by case, so the structure has to carry the analysis.
That is where the evidentiary habit on every other engagement comes from. When a conclusion on a $40M target traces back to a filing with a date, it is because the alternative does not survive at four thousand.
Months to two days, with one analyst
Patent claim charting is the slowest, most expensive step in any infringement or freedom-to-operate assessment. Ours runs in two days with a single analyst, against a job that conventionally takes months and a team.
This is the clearest evidence that EVOS is a working system rather than a positioning claim. The compression is not a shortcut; the same charts get produced, with the same traceability. How the system does it →
A technology carried from customer evidence to a signed term sheet
On a live transaction in downhole energy technology we carried a technology through the entire arc, not a stage of it: voice-of-customer validation with operators, a signed term sheet, a field trial, and a grant strategy to fund the next phase.
Most advisers stop at the recommendation. The reason this one matters is that the capability question — can anyone here actually run a licensing deal from term sheet to integration? — is the one that goes undiagnosed, and the only credible answer is having done it. Where this sits in the method →
Delivered pre-acquisition diligence
Recent engagements include technology and IP diligence delivered inside a sponsor's window ahead of an acquisition — the patent estate and what it covers, prosecution activity and direction, third-party filings across the roadmap, freedom-to-operate exposure, and the regulatory gates that decide whether the stated expansion path is real.
The deliverable set from the most recent of these is available to review under NDA. It is the fastest way to judge whether the standard we describe is the standard we hold. What the engagement covers →
What we will not put on this page
No client name appears here without written clearance, which is why three of the five above are described rather than named. No testimonial quote is attributed to anyone who has not signed it off. And no outcome is claimed as ours when it was the client's — we state what we produced and let the causality stay conservative.
That costs this page some persuasive force, and it is the right trade. A proof page that overstates is worse than a thin one, because everything else on the site asks you to check the work.
See where your growth comes from
The diagnostic scores your Vision Gap and your Capability Gap separately in about four minutes — one portfolio company, no call, no pitch.