The event was packed—both with content and attendees—and offered a clear view into the biggest challenges facing corporate patent teams today. Juristat’s Senior Vice President of IP Solutions, Francesca Cruz, and Account Executive Phil Georgiadis attended the annual event alongside many in-house IP leaders.
Here are five issues we heard repeatedly, along with practical steps forward:
Many companies struggle to identify which patents deliver real value and which are better left behind. Maintenance fee pruning is a common practice, but it’s often based on gut instinct or limited internal metrics.
Combining prosecution analytics with market and litigation signals can help patent teams build objective value frameworks. Knowing which assets are cited by competitors, more likely to be enforced, or filed in key tech areas can shift decision-making from reactive to strategic. Portfolio dashboards and value scoring from Juristat can bring structure to pruning, budgeting, and competitive benchmarking, allowing IP teams to cut costs by up to 20%.
We heard repeated praise for Track One, with claims of faster outcomes and better results. But most of the discussion was anecdotal, and no one had firm data to support it.
Juristat Analytics tracks detailed performance data across programs like Track One, allowing teams to compare allowance rates, 101 rejection rates, and examiner assignments. With this visibility, IP leaders can decide when Track One is worth the investment.
Especially in Silicon Valley, corporate IP teams are building their own tools and leaning heavily on automation. They’re not just curious about AI—they expect external vendors to be fluent in it.
To meet these expectations, legal tech providers must do more than claim AI capabilities. They need to show how AI is embedded in workflows, improves accuracy, and delivers measurable time savings.
Nearly every company at the event operates internationally. But most prosecution tools focus exclusively on U.S. data, leaving gaps in competitive analysis and filing strategy.
Companies need tools that integrate data from foreign jurisdictions, especially high-volume regions like Europe and China. Understanding global prosecution timelines, outcomes, and competitor behavior gives IP teams a more complete view.
IP leaders are under pressure to ensure their patents are granted and stand up in court. Yet there’s often a disconnect between prosecution strategy and litigation performance.
Tying pre-grant indicators to post-grant outcomes can help IP teams adjust filing strategies. By analyzing how examiner behavior, art units, and claim language correlate with litigation results, Juristat Analytics helps teams refine filing strategy. Stronger patents begin with smarter prosecution—and that starts with industry-leading data.
These aren’t just trends. They reflect real pressure on IP teams to find better answers, smarter tools, and stronger collaboration with outside counsel. As expectations rise and portfolios grow more complex, successful teams will be the ones who move beyond intuition and start building policies and partnerships, grounded in data.