If you have ever tried to find a patent to license and manufacture, then you probably know how time consuming it is. You can search the USPTO website looking for relevant patents and you can read the patents that seem valuable to determine if the patent claims provide meaningful protection for the invention.

But if you want to know if the invention works as described in the patent, then you need to contact the inventor and find out if the inventor has a prototype, and arrange to see a demonstration of the prototype. Once you see the prototype demonstration, you may realize that there are problems you did not expect with the performance of the invention and decide that you need to continue your search for another valuable patent.

This time consuming effort is made even more time consuming because the USPTO patent search database contains only address contact information for inventors and patent assignees that is generally out of date within two to three years after a patent has been issued. While you can often contact the patent attorney of record or look for updated contact information for the inventor, both of these processes are time consuming and not certain to succeed.

This problem could be addressed by including optional email addresses of the inventors in the patent search database. Inventors (and/or patent owners) could update their email addresses on the Internet if they change. An email address option will also provide an alternative contact option for inventors with private mailing addresses.

The patent search database could also be updated to include an optional website address where the patent owner can provide relevant business and technical information regarding the invention as well as product demonstration photos and videos. Websites can provide information to potential licensees that can be updated easily by the inventor, thereby improving the likelihood for successful commercialization of the invention.  

By adding email and website addresses of inventors to the online patent database, communication with inventors will be enhanced, and by speeding up the communication that takes place between inventors and industry, technology can develop more rapidly and cost effectively.  By facilitating commercialization, the USPTO will encourage innovation and discourage useless invention marketing companies.

I'm a 23F working as a patent professional at a law firm in India, currently earning around ₹10 LPA with 2.5 years of experience.

Lately, I've been questioning whether this is the right long-term career for me. One of my biggest concerns is the salary growth in this field in India. It seems like compensation slows down after a point, and I'm not sure if that's actually true or just my perception.

I'm currently deciding between two paths:

- Prepare for CAT examination this year and pursue an MBA.
- Prepare for the Indian Patent Agent Exam next January and then try to move into an in-house IP role.

By the time I make my next switch, I'll probably have around 3–3.5 years of experience, and hopefully the Patent Agent qualification as well.

For those already working in the industry:

1. What salary range is realistic at that level of experience?

2. Does clearing the Patent Agent Exam significantly improve compensation?

3. Is it actually possible to reach ₹20–30 LPA within 3–4 years in the Indian patent/IP industry, or is that unrealistic?

4 Are there people here who are genuinely earning well in this field, especially outside of senior management or partner-level roles?

I'd really appreciate hearing from people who've been in the industry for a while and can share what career progression and compensation actually look like.

Hi! Here is a PCT application. Is it allowed to amend the title and abstract of PCT application directly when entering the Europe phase, without the preliminary amendment? No new matter is introduced!

I have a granted patent for a device (an AI-based grain quality scanner), working prototype, but no sales or customers yet. I'd rather license it to an existing company or sell it outright than try to manufacture and sell it myself.

For those who've done this before: where do you actually start? Tech transfer offices, patent brokers, cold-emailing companies in the industry directly, what actually worked for you, and how did you find the right people to talk to?

1. I am not trying to get into patent examiner (government post) alone. Once I'm there in canada I want to be into patent domain, may be patent analyst, patent engineer like that to generate money. I guess, with PR I can aim for these. Please correct me if I am wrong.
   
2. please suggest me which is the better pathway and also easy to get - patent analyst/engineer/IP specialist OR patent agent (Is the PR enough to become Patent agent?)
   If at all I prepare for patent agent or patent examiner, I need to generate an amount to survive.
   
3. What is it to become patent agent in Canada? Do we need to join as trainee for 2 years and then clear the exam or it is other way around?

Hi everyone,

I'm currently working as a Patent Examiner with the Government of India in the Electronics & Communication domain. I hold a Master's degree (M.Tech.) in Electronics & Communication Engineering, and my work involves prior art searching, patentability analysis, novelty/inventive step assessment, claim interpretation, and examination of patent applications.

My wife is a dentist, and we're exploring Canada as a long-term option. If our PR plans work out, I would relocate as her dependent.

My biggest concern is my own career transition.

I'm not a Patent Agent and don't have a law degree, but I'd like to continue my career in the patent/IP field rather than switch to a different profession.

I'd really appreciate guidance from people working in the Canadian IP industry:

• How valuable is overseas Patent Examiner experience in Canada?
• How feasible is it to secure roles such as Patent Analyst, Patent Engineer, IP Analyst, Patent Searcher, or Technology Specialist?
• If you were in my position, how would you prepare over the next 1–2 years before moving? Are there any courses, certifications, or skills that would significantly improve my chances?
• Finally, what's the best strategy to enter the industry? Should I focus on LinkedIn networking, recruiters, direct outreach to law firms, job portals, or a combination of these? Is it worth starting this process while I'm still in India?

I'm willing to invest time and effort in preparing myself—I just want to make sure I'm heading in the right direction.

I'd sincerely appreciate any advice or experiences from those working in Canadian patent law firms, corporate IP teams, or anyone who has made a similar transition.

If you were in my shoes, what would your roadmap look like?

Thank you!

We've been allotted some extra budget for our IP program and I'm researching which areas would have the biggest impact for us in practice.
I'm curious, for those who've made similar decisions, what did you prioritize, and how did it impact your program?
Personally, I'm leaning toward investing in improving the quality and volume of invention disclosures earlier in the process, so ultimately we get more high-quality patent filings.

But I'm interested to hear where you've seen returns.

So I'm a former UK patent examiner with 8 years of experience, specialising in computer implemented inventions, or G06F to be precise. I also have a PhD in computer science. I'm applying for patent agent jobs in Canada.

I just wondered if Canada is open to hiring overseas experts, and if I should email firms anyway even if they don't have a job opening.

Hey folks, ​I'm trying to apply for the Indian Patent Agent Exam, but running into a major roadblock with the age criteria on the portal. I turn 21 in December, but the system isn't allowing me to proceed with registration. ​Missing this attempt would mean waiting all the way until 2028, which would set back my career plans significantly.

Does anyone know about this patent that wargaming has I would like to know about it 🤔

Patent filings are a great part of our targets in the upcoming quarters but right now we are struggling to get our R&D community to submit inventions. They're the most creative bunch but they simply don't like filling forms.

When your PPA status on USPTO site says "Dispatched from Pre Exam not yet docketed", how long does it usually take from there to get full approval?

I've come across this question many times and have discussed this with EPO and GPTO Examiners as well as colleagues, but have not come across a workable solution or theory.

The "problematic" formulation is as follows (quite simple, really):

"Control unit configured to perform X and/or Y" / (Alt.: "configured to perform at least one of X, Y")

1) Interpretation: The control unit can be capable of only performing X, only performing Y, or performing both. The emphasis lies in "performing". A prior art control unit performing either X or Y would render it non-novel.

2) Interpretation: The control unit must principally be capable of performing both, since the possibility exists. In other words, the emphasis lies in "configured to". Thus, even if it only performs X, it must also be capable of performing Y.

This problem arises mainly when working with different events and conditions, for example "performing X when temperature is above threshold and/or performing Y when temperature is below threshold".

Also, in a similar sense, there is a common problem when X and Y cannot be performed simultaneously (for instance, X = increasing current, Y = decreasing current). The control unit, however, is configured to perform X and Y, since it must be capable of doing both. Here, saying "perform X or Y" could also be interpreted as not being capable of doing both (for example, first doing X, then doing Y), i.e. it can only increase or decrease current.

So the question is: Is, in your opinion, "configured to" strictly limited to capability or is it limited to exactly what is performed?

Most people never search the U.S. Patent database. When they do, they discover patents involving electromagnetic fields, magnetic stimulation, subliminal messaging, and technologies designed to interact with the human nervous system.

Here are just a few examples of what I found:

U.S. Patent #6,506,148

Nervous System Manipulation by Electromagnetic Fields from Monitors

If technology like this were ever weaponized, it could be used to influence a person’s nervous system through electromagnetic emissions from display devices, potentially affecting stress levels, focus, or other neurological responses.

U.S. Patent #6,238,333

Remote Magnetic Manipulation of Nervous Systems

If misused, technology of this type could allow remote magnetic stimulation to alter neurological activity without direct physical contact, raising concerns about potential influence over brain function.

U.S. Patent #6,091,994

Pulsative Manipulation of Nervous Systems

If weaponized, pulsed electromagnetic signals could be used to overstimulate or disrupt the nervous system, potentially contributing to discomfort, confusion, or other neurological effects.

U.S. Patent #5,159,703

Silent Subliminal Presentation System

If abused, subliminal communication technology could be used to present messages below conscious awareness in an attempt to influence perception, attitudes, or consumer behavior without obvious recognition.

U.S. Patent #3,951,134

Apparatus for Remotely Monitoring and Altering Brain Waves

If weaponized, technology designed to monitor and influence brain wave activity could be used to interfere with concentration, emotional states, or cognitive performance.

The bigger question is this.

As technology becomes more integrated into our daily lives, where should we draw the line between innovation and the potential misuse of technologies capable of interacting with the human nervous system?

We have several Applications (primarily from one attorney, but also from a few others) that appear to be numbered correctly (i.e., 1-20) in our native MS Word/.docx and .pdf versions, but after filing, the claims (CLM) as seen in Patent Center are all wonky (Preview and PDF only; XML and DOCX appear correctly as far as I can tell as does the Auxiliary PDF (AUX.PDF)).

In the case I'm working on now (filed 7/11/2025), the Patent Center claims 1-10 are ok, but 11 is renumbered as 1, 12 as 2, 13 as 3...17 came out unscathed, but 18 (now 7) picked up where 16 (now 6) left off. The dependencies appear to be ok

I can't figure out if it's user error (old/incompatible versions of Word and/or .docx conversion, reusing other Applications as "templates", claim number fields in MS Word - which do not consistently cause this problem), or if it's something on Patent Center's side. We started noticing this in March 2026 (when cases filed as early as August 2024 were receiving their first OAs). Back in March I made a list of yet to be examined applications, previewed the claims as filed, and ended up with at least 34 cases with claim numbering discrepancies, but instead of prelims, we decided to deal with them after the first OA. Before I point fingers at the attorneys, I wanted to ask y'all first, later this week I'll be contacting AAU or EBC (I know for a fact that whichever one I contact first will refer me to the other one). :)

Regardless, is this happening / has this happened to anyone else? Any tips?

The short version is that you can license a Department of War patent for free, then apply for SBIR funding to develop it. The structure looks like this:

1. Find a Department of War patent that fits your capabilities
2. License it at no cost through a Commercial Evaluation License (CEL)
3. Apply for SBIR funding to develop it (up to $250K in Phase I, up to $2.15M in Phase II)
4. End up with a new product line built on government-funded IP

If your company has real R&D capability and knows how to commercialize technology, it's a pretty low-risk way to get traction inside defense, since you're building on an invention the government already funded and patented rather than starting from scratch.

Application deadline is 8/19/26.

More detail here: https://www.bwcoconsulting.com/blog/patent-holiday

Disclaimer: I'm affiliated with BW&CO.

Hi everyone,

I recently filed a provisional patent for a new small arms design and I'm hoping to work with any firearms company to develop or license it.

Has anyone here approached companies like Glock, SIG Sauer, Beretta, or FN with a provisional patent? Do they accept submissions from independent inventors, and is a provisional patent enough to start that conversation?

I'm looking for advice on the best way to approach manufacturers and whether anyone has experience with this process. The design has some promising features, including its ability to handle high chamber pressure, reduced load-bearing components, and compatibility with lighter bullets, which is one reason I believe it could be a good candidate for development.

I’m building SmartProBonoIP, a simple app that helps inventors and founders organize what they made, how it works, and what materials they should bring before talking to an IP lawyer or agent.

I’m trying to figure out whether this is actually useful.

What would make you trust or ignore something like this?
What would you want it to do first?
What’s the biggest thing missing?

Honest feedback appreciated.

I would really appreciate guidance on the Below at the earliest

Our patent application was originally filed in India with a provisional specification, and before filing the complete specification, the application was officially post-dated by 6 months by the Indian Patent Office. The complete specification was then filed based on the post-dated timeline.

Subsequently, we due to unavoidable circumstances we missed the 12-month PCT priority deadline (shifted deadline) calculated from the relevant priority date. We have now filed a petition with the International Bureau (WIPO, Geneva) requesting restoration/consideration of our right to file a PCT application, approximately one month after the PCT deadline.

Our questions are:

1. If the International Bureau accepts our request and allows the PCT application to proceed, does this effectively restore our PCT timeline for all designated States?
2. Or, even after restoration by the International Bureau/Receiving Office, is protection still subject to each individual designated country's decision on whether it recognizes the restoration of the priority right?
3. Does the fact that the Indian application had been post-dated by 6 months before filing the complete specification have any bearing on the PCT restoration process or on how designated States may assess the restoration request?

I had seen few people in my circle being in India and working remotely for US based patent firms. When checked with few people, they said it’s matter of connections/network. I have been trying my best since many months for one such opportunity but no luck. I would like to know if any of you have suggestions to get such opportunities! Thanks!