Litigation readiness for patent disputes: maturity review
Preparing for a patent dispute starts with practical decisions: who leads the matter, which documents to retain, what evidence to prepare and which forum to consider. Our readiness review turns these questions into a diagnosis and action plan, with a matrix covering governance, documents, evidence, forum and budget. See the deliverables.
The need
Patent litigation sets its own agenda. A claim 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.
Deliverables
- 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.
A few matters that illustrate our practice
Drones: patent infringement action
Assisting a drone manufacturer in a patent infringement action before the Paris Judicial Court. Preparation of evidentiary measures, technical analysis, drafting of the pleadings on the merits and response to procedural incidents.
Medical devices: infringement action before the UPC
Representation of a medical device manufacturer in an infringement action before the Unified Patent Court, alongside a foreign firm. Work on the analysis of the patent, the demonstration of the alleged infringement and the remedies sought.
Analyses and publications to go further
Frequently asked questions
Is the review useful if we have no dispute pending?
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 of our people are involved?
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.
Discuss your matter
To arrange a first diagnosis, contact the firm.