Filing stage and deadlines
State whether an application has already been filed, the filing jurisdiction and date, whether priority is being claimed, and any known PCT or foreign filing deadline. Timing can materially change the available options.
Contact International Patents
Discuss an international patent filing or protection strategy.
Use the form below for enquiries involving PCT applications, Paris Convention filings, national phase entry, country selection, filing costs, timelines or technology-specific international patent strategy.
Save or follow this source
International patent enquiriesPCT · national phase · countries · costs · timelines · technology strategy
Send your enquiry
Provide enough context to identify the invention, relevant filing stage, jurisdictions under consideration and any known deadline. Do not send confidential information unless an appropriate professional relationship and confidentiality arrangement have been established.
Information that can make an international patent discussion more useful
A concise factual overview helps identify the procedural route and immediate risks. The items below are guidance only and do not create an attorney-client relationship.
Target jurisdictions and commercial objective
Identify the countries or regions being considered and why they matter—for example sales markets, manufacturing, licensing, competitors, investors or enforcement. This helps separate procedural possibility from commercial value.
Technology and invention context
Briefly identify the technology field and the core technical contribution. Software, AI, biotechnology, medical devices, semiconductor, mechanical and other inventions may require different claim and disclosure strategies.
Budget and decision stage
Indicate whether the objective is broad option preservation, a focused country portfolio, investor/fundraising readiness, licensing, launch support or another outcome. International filing choices should be aligned with the decision being made.
Featured insight
Technology, patent procedure and commercial strategy should be considered together.
International filing decisions are stronger when the procedural route is evaluated alongside technology, commercial markets, competitor activity and the purpose of the patent portfolio.
Featured Work & Insights
Research and decision guidance
What to include in an international patent consultation request
A useful first message should identify the invention or technical field, current filing status, earliest known priority date, any public disclosure or planned launch, countries under consideration and the decision that needs to be made. If a PCT application already exists, include the international application number and important upcoming deadlines. The purpose is not to send every technical document immediately, but to provide enough context to identify the procedural and strategic questions that require attention.
Describe the commercial outcome, not only the legal task
International filing strategy is stronger when the business objective is clear. Explain whether the patent family is intended to support product launch, investor diligence, licensing, manufacturing, market entry, defensive positioning, acquisition, standards participation or enforcement. Two companies with similar inventions can rationally choose different countries because their customers, supply chains, competitors and licensing models are different. The consultation should connect patent procedure to the outcome the company actually needs.
Provide the technical architecture that affects claim strategy
For software and AI, identify server, client, device, data and model roles. For semiconductors, identify design, fabrication, packaging, testing and system integration. For biotech, pharma and medical devices, identify the relevant product, process, use or composition layer. A short architecture summary helps determine whether the most valuable claims should focus on one actor, one component or several technical layers.
Flag deadlines and disclosures early
Priority deadlines, PCT national-phase dates, public demonstrations, publications, sales activity and investor announcements can change the available strategy. Include any known dates even if their legal significance is uncertain. A consultation can then separate immediate procedural actions from longer-term portfolio planning and identify which facts need to be confirmed against the governing patent-office or treaty rules.
Prepare a jurisdiction shortlist with reasons
If countries have already been discussed internally, list them together with the commercial reason for each. Revenue, manufacturing, technical infrastructure, competitors, customers, partners and licensing opportunities are stronger inputs than a generic instruction to file worldwide. Where no shortlist exists, the consultation can build one using the evidence available about the invention and business.
Keep ownership and inventorship facts available
Identify founders, employees, contractors, universities, joint-development partners or customers who contributed to the technical work. Inventorship and ownership are distinct questions, and international diligence becomes more difficult when assignment records are incomplete. The initial consultation can flag documentation issues that should be resolved before major foreign filing, financing or licensing events.
What happens after the initial strategy discussion
The next step depends on the filing stage. It may involve a filing-route decision, country scorecard, deadline review, claim-architecture assessment, research plan, evidence checklist or coordination with local counsel. The objective is to convert an open-ended question into a defined sequence of decisions and documents rather than simply provide general information.
Use official sources for procedural confirmation
Patent-office requirements, fees and practice can change. Any consequential filing step should be verified against the current official patent-office, WIPO or regional-system materials applicable to the jurisdiction. The research on this platform is designed to organize the decision and surface relevant issues, but the current official source controls when a procedural requirement has changed.
Practical review point 1: connect the page to the filing outcome
Before acting on this page, identify the exact decision it is meant to support, the official source that controls any procedural requirement, the technical or commercial evidence that justifies the chosen jurisdiction, and the next deadline or document required. A clear decision record should also state what would cause the strategy to change. This makes the research usable during later prosecution, national-phase selection, budgeting and portfolio review rather than leaving it as a static summary.
Practical review point 2: connect the page to the filing outcome
Before acting on this page, identify the exact decision it is meant to support, the official source that controls any procedural requirement, the technical or commercial evidence that justifies the chosen jurisdiction, and the next deadline or document required. A clear decision record should also state what would cause the strategy to change. This makes the research usable during later prosecution, national-phase selection, budgeting and portfolio review rather than leaving it as a static summary.
Practical review point 3: connect the page to the filing outcome
Before acting on this page, identify the exact decision it is meant to support, the official source that controls any procedural requirement, the technical or commercial evidence that justifies the chosen jurisdiction, and the next deadline or document required. A clear decision record should also state what would cause the strategy to change. This makes the research usable during later prosecution, national-phase selection, budgeting and portfolio review rather than leaving it as a static summary.
Practical review point 4: connect the page to the filing outcome
Before acting on this page, identify the exact decision it is meant to support, the official source that controls any procedural requirement, the technical or commercial evidence that justifies the chosen jurisdiction, and the next deadline or document required. A clear decision record should also state what would cause the strategy to change. This makes the research usable during later prosecution, national-phase selection, budgeting and portfolio review rather than leaving it as a static summary.
Practical review point 5: connect the page to the filing outcome
Before acting on this page, identify the exact decision it is meant to support, the official source that controls any procedural requirement, the technical or commercial evidence that justifies the chosen jurisdiction, and the next deadline or document required. A clear decision record should also state what would cause the strategy to change. This makes the research usable during later prosecution, national-phase selection, budgeting and portfolio review rather than leaving it as a static summary.
Practical review point 6: connect the page to the filing outcome
Before acting on this page, identify the exact decision it is meant to support, the official source that controls any procedural requirement, the technical or commercial evidence that justifies the chosen jurisdiction, and the next deadline or document required. A clear decision record should also state what would cause the strategy to change. This makes the research usable during later prosecution, national-phase selection, budgeting and portfolio review rather than leaving it as a static summary.
Prefer email?
rd (at) patentbusinesslawyer (dot) com