shaheeniquebal

Thanks for this. Super helpful perspective.

The point about health-tech still leaning on patents because “it works” is interesting. From your conversations with early-stage founders, did you notice whether that confidence comes from actual enforcement experience, or more from investor expectation and signaling value?

The GAU strategy you mentioned is also fascinating. Intentionally slowing prosecution to stay under examination longer. In practice, do founders see that as a strategic delay tactic, or is it mostly attorney-driven?

And on AI/software patents given how common 101 rejections are post-Alice, do you feel early-stage teams still see patents as worth the cost and uncertainty? Or are they filing more for positioning than enforceability?

Really appreciate you sharing your experience would love to understand where you think the biggest blind spots are for early-stage teams.

Totally agree. Enforcing a patent is often the most unaffordable part. When the enforcement path is basically off the table, do you think lighter-weight IP protection methods (like publishing something as prior art so nobody else can patent it) actually help in practice, or are they still too limited to matter?

Thanks for sharing that — really helpful perspective.

Can I ask: in situations like yours, would a lower-cost way to establish defensible prior art (basically a time-stamped public disclosure that blocks others from patenting the same idea) have been useful, or would it still not have justified the effort?