IP is a management function. Run it like one.
A Chief IP Officer on retainer — and, when the portfolio is in shape, the same operator structures capital against it. Counsel keeps prosecution. The CFO gets an instrument, not an expense line.
Four questions that don’t go away.
Surface complaints, all rational. The fears underneath are about judgment, authority, and stewardship of capital.
None of these are one-time events. They sit on the desk every quarter. Chief IP Officer on retainer is what answers them — without starting a fight with counsel, and without waiting for an outside call to surface them.
Two pillars. One operator.
Chief IP Officer on retainer runs the day-to-day, and IP-backed lending opens up once the portfolio is in shape to lend against.
Chief IP Officer
on retainer.
A patent-strategy role sized to the portfolio. We run the docket, set continuation strategy, draft the thesis the filings get scoped against, and coordinate with the firms doing prosecution. Counsel stays in place.
One altitude above the prosecution conversation — where portfolio-level decisions get made deliberately, on a timeline, in service of a thesis written down before the filings were drafted.
IP-backed
lending.
When the portfolio is in shape — clean chain of title, filings mapped to revenue, claim scope written against the products that actually earn — capital becomes available against it. The same operator who runs the role structures the facility.
~15 IP-collateralized facilities structured and underwritten to date. The portfolio reads, from the lender’s side, the way the rest of the business reads from the CFO’s side. No new diligence party. No quarter-long handoff.
Most engagements start at Pillar 1. Lending opens up later — sometimes years later, sometimes never. The point is that the same operator is shaping the portfolio for both endpoints from day one, so neither requires a re-introduction when the moment arrives.
Three readings of the same portfolio.
Why the role is shaped the way it is — and why the two pillars sit under one roof rather than being sold as separate products.
Five-year portfolios
Earlier in the practice — alongside in-house IP teams that operated the portfolio as a five-year strategic instrument. Claim scope written against the product. Filings shaped against named competitors. Continuations held open as live options.
~15 facilities
Roughly fifteen IP-collateralized lending facilities structured and underwritten. Portfolios read from the underwriter’s side, where chain of title, filing-to-revenue mapping, and workout survivability are the unit of analysis — not edge concerns.
~100 patents in-house
In-house counsel at a venture-backed startup with roughly a hundred patents under management. Running the docket and setting continuation strategy from inside the company, with the business context every filing decision actually depends on.
The lender’s reading shapes the CIPO work. The CIPO work shapes the lending.
Chain of title, filing-to-revenue mapping, claim scope written against the product the company actually sells — these aren’t lending concerns brought in late. They are how every filing is scoped from the start. The portfolio is built to be lendable whether or not lending is ever on the table.
When the portfolio reaches a state where capital against it is the right move — usually coordinated with the CFO, usually tied to a revenue event the company can name — the same operator structures the facility. No new diligence party walking the docket from zero. No quarter-long re-introduction to the asset.
Two pillars under one roof. The CIPO retainer is what the company pays for every month. The lending pillar is the option the retainer makes available, on the timeline the business wants it.
- −A prosecution shop with a strategy add-on.
- −A pure-advice fractional CIPO with no instrument in hand.
- −A patent-brokerage or a lender. We do not buy or sell portfolios.
- +Chief IP Officer on retainer — sized to the portfolio.
- +Held by an operator who has read portfolios from the lender’s side and from inside the company.
- +With IP-backed lending available when the portfolio is in shape and the business wants the option.
Patents are not the goal.
The company wants what patents make possible. Capital against the portfolio is one of those outcomes. So is leverage in the next distribution deal, and the ability to act when a competitor moves into the space.
What changes when patent strategy is run as a function.
Outside-counsel spend goes down.
The attorneys do the work that matters. Filing volume tracks business objectives, not invention disclosures.
Every filing tied to a competitive position.
A named competitor, a licensing posture, a standards play, or an element of the company’s revenue stream. Filings that fit none of those don’t get drafted.
A portfolio the company can borrow against.
Clean chain of title. Filings mapped to revenue. Capital available against the portfolio when the company wants the option — and structured by the same operator who shaped it.
Patents that change competitor behavior.
Claims drafted against a competitor’s roadmap. Patents essential for industry standards. Litigation-grade claims that survive the scrutiny of enforcement. The portfolio is worth something when the cross-license or the enforcement letter comes.
Who runs it.
Counsel. Lender. Operator. One practice.
Outside counsel earlier in the practice, alongside in-house IP teams that operated the portfolio as a five-year strategic instrument. That altitude — claim scope written against the product, filings shaped against named competitors, continuations held open as live options — is the discipline that runs the CIPO work now.
Since: roughly fifteen IP-collateralized lending facilities structured and underwritten — reading portfolios from the lender’s side, where chain of title, filing-to-revenue mapping, and workout survivability are the unit of analysis. And in-house counsel at a venture-backed startup with ~100 patents under management — running the docket and setting continuation strategy from inside the company.
Three readings of the same asset — counsel, lender, operator — converging in one practice. Engineer first, patent attorney second. Author of Investing in Patents and host of the Patent Myths podcast.
Writing on the economics of patent strategy.
They say “Get More Patents” but they really mean something else
They want leverage over competitors. Protection for revenue streams. A seat at the table in joint ventures and standards bodies. Licensing income from technology the market has decided to adopt. “Get more patents” is how that comes out. The instinct is right. What they’re really asking for is powerful. The roadmap to get there is […]
Read →Are Your Patents Excellent — Or Just Expensive?
Your board will eventually ask a question your patent portfolio cannot answer: what did we actually buy, and can anyone in this room defend it as a business decision? Not an enforcement question. Not a legal question. A capital allocation question.[1] Did this company spend its patent budget building strategic leverage — or did it […]
Read →Your Inventor Loves Your Patent Attorney. That Is the Problem.
The bond that makes the disclosure meeting work is the same bond that makes quality invisible. Your lead engineer just came back from a meeting with your patent attorney. They are glowing. The attorney “really got it.” The attorney asked the right questions, followed the logic, saw the connections. The engineer has never felt so […]
Read →Patents that work as assets — not paperwork.
Why most patents are worthless. Why your attorney’s incentives don’t align with yours by default. And the decision framework that separates investment-grade patents from expensive paperwork. The book the practice — and the lending pillar — is built on.
Thirty minutes. Enough to know whether Chief IP Officer on retainer — and the capital option behind it — fits your company.
If what you need is something else, we’ll tell you on the same call.