The Hidden Costs Inside Most IP Portfolios

Cost overruns in IP often don’t come from a single obvious mistake. They sneak in quietly — a missed interview here, an unnecessary RCE there. Multiply those across your portfolio, and you're suddenly looking at millions in waste. This article breaks down the most common sources of prosecutorial cost creep and how top IP teams are surfacing them early.

The Real Risk Isn’t the Outlier — It’s the Pattern

When IP costs spiral, many teams focus on outliers. Maybe it was a complex filing that went through too many appeals or dragged on for years.

But in our work with corporate patent teams, that’s rarely the root issue.

The biggest cost risks come from subtle, recurring patterns:

• Applications that rack up multiple RCEs without resolution
• Examiners with low allowance rates that lead to drawn-out prosecution
• Filings that go through four or more office actions with no interview

These aren’t catastrophic failures. They’re quiet inefficiencies that blend into the background — and when left unchecked, they quietly drain millions from your annual IP budget.

3 Hidden Drivers of Prosecution Spend

Here are the most common cost leaks we flag in cost audits:

1. Applications with low-allowance examiners

Examiners with sub-25% allowance rates make it harder to prosecute efficiently. These applications often require six or more office actions, each one compounding time and expense.

2. RCEs filed by default

Look for this pattern:

• 6+ office actions
• 2+ RCEs
• No appeals
• Examiner has better outcomes through appeal than RCE

This suggests the team defaulted to a longer, more expensive path, even when the data pointed elsewhere.

3. Interviews skipped where they matter

Consider this combination:

• 4+ office actions
• No interview
• Interview win rate is equal to or better than RCE win rate

Missed interviews don’t just slow things down. They increase the number of actions needed, reduce clarity, and delay resolution.

Why These Patterns Get Missed

Even with solid systems in place, these cost patterns often go undetected. Why?

• Siloed tools: Docketing data, budget tracking, and outcome metrics rarely live in one place.
• No benchmarks for acceptable spend: Many teams don’t define cost thresholds by tech area or application type.

No single owner of prosecution strategy: Legal teams track compliance. Finance tracks spend. But no one is monitoring whether strategy is efficient across the board.

What Cost Creep Looks Like at Scale

Even small inefficiencies can have a big impact:

• Just 50 applications with excessive office actions and missed interviews could add more than $500,000 in avoidable fees.
• Larger portfolios may see prosecution waste inflating costs by 10–30% annually.

Without visibility, these patterns persist across firms, examiners, and business units.

How to Get Ahead of It

Top teams are already shifting from reactive to proactive. Here’s how:

Run regular prosecution audits

Review pending applications with high office action counts, multiple RCEs, and low examiner success rates. Flag them for strategy review.

Set clearer expectations with outside counsel

Align on benchmarks by tech center or business line. If appeals are more successful with a certain examiner, your team shouldn’t default to an RCE.

Build internal dashboards

Track cost per application, interview use, RCE vs. appeal outcomes, and success by examiner. Use this data to inform decisions, not just monitor them.

Make prosecution spend a leadership metric

Don’t wait for budget season. Keep leadership informed on what’s driving costs, and where strategic shifts could improve outcomes.

Stop Playing Defense on Prosecution Costs

Great IP teams don’t just control spend. They understand it. They spot creeping costs early and make smarter decisions to protect value, not just cut budget. Want help spotting hidden costs in your portfolio?

Book a Prosecution Cost Review

We’ll help you identify avoidable patterns and opportunities to strengthen outcomes while reducing spend.