Self-Serve tier

Run a 35 USC §101 / Alice-Mayo two-step subject-matter eligibility analysis for software, business-method, or diagnostic patent claims; produce examiner-grade rejection-or-rebuttal memo grounded in Alice 573 US 208, Mayo 566 US 66, MPEP §2106, and the 2019 PEG.

Run a 35 USC §102 anticipation analysis applying the correct AIA vs pre-AIA framework based on effective filing date; produce element-by-element claim chart, prior-art-date analysis, exception/grace-period audit, and rejection-or-rebuttal memo grounded in MPEP §2131-§2155.

Run a 35 USC §103 obviousness analysis under KSR 550 US 398 + Graham 383 US 1, applying the four Graham factors and the seven KSR rationales; produce examiner-grade rejection-or-rebuttal memo with secondary-considerations evidence chart.

Run a 35 USC §112(a) written-description and enablement analysis (with §112(b) definiteness and §112(f) means-plus-function overlay) on disputed claims; produce examiner-grade rejection-or-rebuttal memo grounded in Ariad, Wands, Nautilus, and Williamson.

Build a Markman claim-construction record for disputed claim terms; produce a Phillips-hierarchy intrinsic-evidence brief with extrinsic-evidence overlay, prosecution-history disclaimer audit, and proposed constructions ready for the joint claim construction statement.

Run a double-patenting analysis (statutory same-invention OR obviousness-type / nonstatutory) under MPEP §804 + §804.01-§804.04; produce examiner-grade rejection-or-rebuttal memo with terminal-disclaimer recommendation grounded in In re Hubbell, Gilead Sciences, and Eli Lilly v.

Choose IPR vs PGR vs CBM (sunset) AIA-trial pathway and build the petition framework — institution thresholds, statutory bars (§315(b) one-year), Fintiv discretionary denials, estoppel exposure (§315(e)), grounds limits — grounded in 35 USC §§311, 321, SAS 584 US 357, and Cuozzo

Build a USITC §337 investigation framework — domestic-industry economic + technical prongs, importation showing, exclusion / cease-and-desist remedy planning, parallel district-court coordination — for patent or trade-secret claims grounded in 19 USC §1337 and TianRui v. ITC.

Run a prosecution-history estoppel analysis under Festo 535 US 722 + Festo IX 344 F.3d 1359; rebut the presumption of surrender via foreseeability, tangential relation, or other-reason exceptions for doctrine-of-equivalents claims grounded in Warner-Jenkinson 520 US 17 and Hilton

Run a trademark likelihood-of-confusion analysis under the In re EI DuPont 13-factor test (TTAB) or applicable circuit's eight-to-thirteen-factor variant; produce TTAB-deployable opposition / cancellation / civil-infringement memo grounded in 15 USC §1052(d) and §1114.

Run a USPTO trademark application strategy — distinctiveness audit, Nice classification, basis selection (1(a) use vs 1(b) intent vs 44(d)/(e) foreign vs 66(a) Madrid), specimen requirements — grounded in 15 USC §1051, Lanham Act, and TMEP §§800-1200.

Build a TTAB opposition or cancellation petition under 37 CFR §2.111 / §2.104 — standing under Lexmark, statutory grounds (priority + LoC, dilution, fraud, abandonment, descriptiveness, genericness), Twombly/Iqbal pleading, accelerated case resolution — grounded in 15 USC §§1063,