Litigation readiness for patent disputes: maturity review
Many companies hold patents, products and competitors, but no crisis doctrine. Who decides if a writ of summons arrives? What evidence exists? Where are the contracts and the key people? Which court to choose? What to do in the first twenty-four hours? Litigation readiness turns this diffuse concern into a diagnosis and an action plan.
The need
Patent litigation sets its own agenda. A summons before the Unified Patent Court imposes short response deadlines. A saisie-contrefaçon takes place without notice. A provisional measure can halt sales within weeks. A company that has not prepared its governance, its evidence and its budget trade-offs then suffers the opponent’s timetable. The maturity review aims to regain the initiative before the dispute arises, whether as claimant or as defendant.
What you receive
- A maturity questionnaire and targeted interviews with the functions concerned: management, legal, research, production, sales.
- A map of assets, risks, evidence, people and decisions.
- A red, amber, green matrix on five axes: governance, documents, evidence, choice of forum and budget.
- Attack and defence scenarios, with their procedural and financial consequences.
- A ninety-day action plan and a debriefing committee.
How we work
First, a diagnosis measures the company’s maturity on the five axes and identifies the most urgent gaps. Next, a ten-working-day sprint goes deeper into the critical points and produces the report and the action plan. Finally, a full review can cover all sites, portfolios and contracts. The people to interview are validated from the outset. Time spent is tracked engagement by engagement and the report is written for senior management, with a one-page summary.
Who it is for
Industrial and technology companies holding patents, companies launching a product on a market where competitors hold patents, companies in the course of fundraising or acquisition, groups wishing to harmonise the response of their subsidiaries. The review is also useful to companies considering an infringement action that want to check they have the evidence and the organisation required.
What comes next
The review often reveals a need for a response protocol for a saisie-contrefaçon, of trade secret protection, contract review or evidence gathering. These follow-ups are the subject of separate proposals. Thirty days after the debriefing, a check-in allows a decision on implementation, a simulation or ongoing support.
Frequently asked questions
Is the review useful if we have no ongoing dispute?
That is precisely the right time. Preparation carried out outside any emergency costs less and yields more than an improvised reaction. It also supports the company’s valuation with investors and acquirers.
How many people are involved on our side?
Between four and eight contacts depending on the format, for interviews of about one hour. Document collection is organised by the firm from a closed list.
Can the report be shared with third parties?
The report is covered by legal professional privilege. A version intended for investors or insurers can be prepared separately, with the client’s agreement.
To arrange a first diagnosis, contact the firm.