The pilot outcome
of low-value or unrecovered preparation targeted across ten suitable matters.
A clearer day-one client experience.
A better-prepared first attorney review.
Professional control unchanged.
Put yourself in the client’s shoes
Imagine I’m the founder of an AI-enabled medical-device company.
- Investors are interested
- A live demonstration in two weeks
- Prototype results and technical files
- Employees and contractors who contributed
- What is actually protectable
- Whether I have disclosed too much
- What the attorney needs from me
- What the first stage might cost
The reality
My files contain the story. They do not contain the answers.
Technical evidence
Prototype results, system drawings and a working description of what changed.
Commercial pressure
A website teaser next week and a public demonstration already in the diary.
Ownership gaps
A contractor built the optical housing; the assignment wording is unclear.
A possible disclosure
An architecture screenshot sat on a public GitHub issue for three hours.
Where time goes
Professional judgement gets trapped inside reconstruction.
- Find the latest version
- Reconcile dates and contributors
- Separate fact from founder assumption
- Work out what is missing
Incomplete disclosures create more meetings, consultation, iterations and drafts.
What the data can—and cannot—say
The cost is visible. This exact slice has not been measured.
General legal benchmark. Not patent-specific, and not all unbilled time is waste.
US IP-practice context—not a measure of intake reconstruction.
So the saving is a pilot hypothesis, not a borrowed statistic.
The product
One intake becomes a reviewable, evidence-linked first pass.
Client context
Guided questions plus the files they already have.
Missing facts
Technical, ownership and disclosure dependencies become visible.
Exact evidence
Every suggested issue opens the relevant passage in the source.
Human control
The attorney accepts, edits or rejects—and controls scope and fees.
Value from day one
The client feels progress before the first meeting.
- “Send us everything”
- Repeated requests for basic facts
- No visibility on urgency or next steps
- A quote built on avoidable assumptions
- A clear picture of what is complete
- Focused questions they can actually answer
- Urgent dates surfaced early
- A better-informed route to scope and price
Change perspective
Now I stop being the client.
This is what Carrie sees before the first substantive review.
Value for the attorney
Reclaim work that is hard to bill—without automating judgement.
Start prepared
Technical, ownership and disclosure facts arrive in a structured first-review pack.
Inspect evidence
Open the exact source passage behind every suggested issue.
Apply judgement
Accept, edit or reject each point; retain control of legal advice, scope and fee.
Improve intake
Record which suggestions helped so the firm’s question set improves over time.
Pricing transparency
The portal shows a starting range—not an all-in fee.
- Likely patent, design and trade mark workstreams
- Markets and filing route under consideration
- Urgency, evidence quality and missing information
- Visible assumptions approved by the attorney
- Hourly, fixed, capped, blended or retainer structure
- Scope changes and complexity judgement
- Official and overseas-agent costs shown separately where relevant
- The final engagement and client-facing estimate
Live demonstration
Aurelia Lens has exactly the gaps the portal should catch.
Fictional mixed-IP matter
Wearable surgical visualisation system. Synthetic documents only. No client data.
Possible public GitHub disclosure before a planned live demonstration
Contractor-developed optical housing with unclear assignment
No systematic prior-art search and an incomplete contribution record
The measurable hypothesis
Thirty to sixty minutes per matter is the test—not the claim.
Some preparation is billable, delegated or professionally necessary. The pilot measures what actually changes.
Time to the first useful triage decision
Number of client follow-up loops
Time to verify each cited finding
Suggestions accepted, edited or rejected
The ask
Ten matters.
Four weeks.
Your rules.
I built the working demonstration in one week. The day-one benefit is visible now; the firm-specific advantage needs your judgement and more time.
If the portal creates more checking work, stop. If it produces a better starting point, co-design the next version.