experienced U.S. patent counsel for AI innovators
AddyHart assists software companies, artificial intelligence developers, cloud computing providers, startups, universities, and technology innovators in obtaining and managing patent protection in the United States. We combine deep technical expertise with practical patent prosecution experience to help clients protect software-driven innovations while navigating the rapidly evolving landscape of patent eligibility, USPTO examination, and post-grant practice.
Protecting Innovation Across
the AI & Software Stack
AI and software products often combine innovations across data architecture, model development, computing infrastructure, user workflows, and system integration. We work with technical and legal teams to identify where the patentable value resides and develop coordinated claim strategies directed to the technology’s architecture, operation, and practical implementation.
Representative Technologies
AI Models & Learning Systems
-
Machine-learning architectures
-
Training and inference systems
-
Model optimization
-
Generative AI
-
Explainability and validation
-
Human-in-the-loop systems
Representative Technologies
Software Platforms & Workflows
-
Enterprise software
-
Automation systems
-
Decision-support tools
-
Developer platforms
-
Analytics and visualization
-
Application programming interfaces
Representative Technologies
Data & Computing Infrastructure
-
Data collection and preparation
-
Distributed computing
-
Cloud platforms
-
Edge computing
-
Search and retrieval systems
-
Data pipelines and orchestration
Representative Technologies
Security, Identity & Connected Systems
-
Cybersecurity
-
Identity verification
-
Authentication
-
Privacy-preserving technologies
-
Network management
-
Internet-of-Things systems
By developing claims across multiple technical layers, we help clients protect not only a particular model or software feature, but also the infrastructure, workflows, and system interactions that support commercial implementation.
Drafting & Prosecution Workflows
01
Invention Intake & Architecture Mapping
We work with inventors to identify the technical problem, system components, data flows, processing steps, and measurable improvements that distinguish the invention.
02
Application Drafting
Applications are developed with layered system, method, and computer-readable-medium claims, supported by alternative architectures, implementation details, and technical advantages.
03
Eligibility-Focused Prosecution
We address patent-eligibility issues by grounding the claimed invention in the disclosed technological improvement and the specific way the system operates.
04
Examiner Interviews & Evidence
Examiner interviews, technical explanations, and appropriate evidentiary submissions may be used to clarify how the invention differs from generalized software activity or the cited prior art.
05
Appeals & Post-Grant Proceedings
When disputes cannot be resolved through examination, we represent clients before the PTAB and in proceedings involving issued patents.
Please do not provide confidential technical information or substantive legal instructions until conflicts clearance and engagement arrangements have been confirmed.
Building Portfolios That Evolve With the Technology
Software products and AI systems rarely remain static. New model architectures, data sources, deployment environments, integrations, and product features may create additional patent opportunities after an initial application is filed. We use continuation and related-application strategies to preserve flexibility as the technology and commercial platform develop.
Continuation
Strategy
✓ Alternative claim categories
✓ New commercial implementations
✓ Competitor-focused claims
✓ Platform and component coverage
International Coordination
✓ PCT and national-stage strategy
✓ Coordination with foreign counsel
✓ Disclosure consistency
✓ Jurisdiction-specific claim planning
Portfolio
Alignment
✓ Product-roadmap reviews
✓ Related-family coordination
✓ Invention harvesting
✓ Pruning and prioritization
Transparent Pricing
We believe clients should understand the expected cost of patent prosecution before work begins. Many of our most common services are offered at predetermined professional fees, allowing clients to budget with confidence and avoid unexpected billing.
Utility Patent Application Drafting
$5,500 - $7,500 USD
Strategic preparation of utility patent applications designed to protect commercially valuable innovations while supporting long-term portfolio development.
Office Action Responses
$1,250 USD
Substantive responses to USPTO Office Actions addressing patentability, eligibility, and examination issues.
Restriction Responses
$250 USD
Strategic responses to USPTO restriction requirements, including election of inventions and preservation of future filing opportunities.
Read: Restriction Requirements as Substantive Limiters: Lessons from Focus Products v. Kartri
Standard Office Action Turnaround
No Additional Rush Fee
We target delivery of draft Office Action responses within two weeks after receiving the USPTO communication and the information needed to prepare the response.
Any applicable USPTO extension-of-time fees remain the client’s responsibility.
Read: The Three-Month Date Is a Backstop, Not a Filing Target
Design Patent Application Drafting
Quoted in Advance
Preparation of design patent applications to protect the ornamental appearance of products while complementing broader intellectual property strategies.
Read: One Design, Two Regimes: U.S. and EU Design Protection After LKQ
Continuation Application Drafting
$500 USD
Preparation and filing of continuation applications to preserve strategic claim opportunities, maintain pending application families, and support long-term U.S. patent portfolio development.
Information Disclosure Statements
$0 USD — AddyHart professional fee only; USPTO and third-party costs are separate
Preparation and filing of routine Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs).
Ex Parte Appeals to the PTAB
$3,500 USD
Preparation and presentation of an ex parte appeal from an adverse examiner decision, including the Appeal Brief, Reply Brief, and oral argument within the agreed scope.
AddyHart professional fee; applicable USPTO fees are separate.
U.S. National Stage Filing (35
U.S.C. § 371)
$500 USD — AddyHart professional fee only; USPTO and third-party costs are separate
Assistance with U.S. national stage entry from international (PCT) applications, including preparation and filing of required documents.
Read: Choosing Between a § 371 National Stage and a Bypass Continuation in U.S. PCT Practice
Examiner Interviews
$250 USD
Direct engagement with USPTO examiners to clarify issues, advance prosecution, and improve the path toward allowance.
Ministerial Tasks
$0 USD — AddyHart professional fee only; USPTO and third-party costs are separate
Including issue fee payments, Requests for Continued Examination (RCEs), and similar administrative filings.
Read: Lean Patent Operations: Jidoka, Automation, and AI in Patent-Prosecution Workflows
Application-drafting fees are established in advance based on the technology, complexity, number of embodiments, and anticipated scope of the application.
We target delivery of draft Office Action responses within two weeks after receiving the USPTO communication and the information needed to prepare the response. Routine administrative work—such as issue-fee processing, preparation of standard Information Disclosure Statements, and filing an instructed Request for Continued Examination—is not used as a separate source of professional fees.
Listed amounts are AddyHart professional fees for standard matters within the described scope. USPTO fees, drawings, searches, translations, experts, vendors, appeals, petitions, declarations, litigation, and extraordinary matters are excluded unless expressly stated. All representations are subject to conflicts clearance and a written engagement agreement
Why AddyHart for
AI & Software IP
From early platform development through patent issuance, we help companies identify, protect, and expand the technical innovations underlying their software and AI products. Our services are designed to support evolving architectures, eligibility-focused prosecution strategies, continuation planning, and long-term portfolio growth.
Technical Fluency
Our team includes attorneys with engineering, computer-science, and software-development experience who can engage directly with inventors and understand complex system architectures.
Eligibility Strategy From the Outset
We develop applications around the technological contribution and its implementation rather than waiting for eligibility issues to arise during examination.
Claims Designed for Commercial Relevance
We seek to protect system relationships, processing architecture, and product functionality that can remain valuable as implementations and platforms evolve.
Prosecution Informed by Appeals & Post-Grant Experience
Our PTAB, appellate, and post-grant experience informs how we approach claim language, specification support, amendments, and prosecution history.
Integrated With
Enterprise Patent Operations
AI and software portfolios may involve high filing volumes, overlapping product teams, rapidly changing technologies, and detailed client reporting requirements. Divergent can work within client-specific invention-intake procedures, prosecution guidelines, budgeting systems, matter codes, reporting formats, and approval structures. We confirm responsibility, review procedures, communication channels, and deadline coverage at the outset of the engagement.
Explore Enterprise Patent Operations → Explore Procurement & Security Readiness →Relevant Team
The professionals below bring experience with artificial intelligence, software, cloud infrastructure, data analytics, computer architecture, and patent-eligibility strategy.
Gregory B. Gulliver
Partner · Registered Patent Attorney · Former Software Engineer
A former software engineer with nine years of industry experience, Gregory has prepared and prosecuted hundreds of applications involving wireless communications, software, computer hardware, semiconductors, and network technologies.
View Gregory's Profile
Brandon R. Theiss
Partner · Registered Patent Attorney · Licensed Professional Engineer
A licensed professional engineer and former industrial-control and medical-device engineer, Brandon advises on patent prosecution, § 101 strategy, portfolio development, and post-grant proceedings involving AI, software, cloud systems, medical devices, and automation.
View Brandon's Profile
James B. Hatten
Senior Counsel · Registered Patent Attorney · Computer Engineering
A computer engineer and registered patent attorney, James advises on prosecution and IP risk involving software platforms, computer architecture, telecommunications, networking, electronic payments, and identity-verification technologies.
View James's Profile
Scott D. Paul
Partner · Registered Patent Attorney · Materials & Mechanical Engineering
A materials and mechanical engineer, Scott has prosecuted more than 2,000 U.S. applications, drafted more than 600 applications, and filed more than 1,000 PTAB appeal briefs involving AI, semiconductors, cloud systems, medical devices, and advanced manufacturing.
View Scott's Profile
Robert Hyun Chang
Of Counsel · Registered Patent Attorney · Materials Engineer
A registered patent attorney with more than 25 years of intellectual-property experience and degrees in metallurgical and materials science engineering and physics, Robert helps technology companies draft and prosecute U.S. patent applications, build and monetize portfolios, and develop claim and licensing strategies grounded in complex technology and commercial objectives.
View Robert's Profile
Eric Wait, PhD
Technical Advisor · Ph.D. in Electrical & Computer Engineering · AI & Data Science
Senior Technical Advisor · Ph.D. in Electrical & Computer Engineering · AI & Data Science
View Eric's Profile
Ganesh J. Prabu
Technical Advisor · Wireless Engineer · Patent Analysis and Licensing Support
Ganesh J. Prabu is a wireless engineer and technical advisor with more than two decades of experience, including roles at Motorola and BlackBerry. He supports patent prosecution, licensing, and litigation through technical analysis of 5G, LTE, and IoT technologies, claim-chart development, reverse engineering, and evidence-of-use analysis.
View Ganesh's Profile
Heather King (Allebach)
Paralegal Lead · Patent & Litigation Operations
Heather coordinates portfolio onboarding, USPTO filing formalities, client reporting, foreign correspondence, requests for instructions, portfolio transitions, and implementation of client-specific prosecution procedures.
View Heather's Profile Meet Our Full TeamRelated Publications & Insights
Including a Description of Technical Advantages During Patent Application Drafting May Help Patent Eligibility
Intellectual Property Law Section Proceedings
Read Article →How Patent Eligibility Declarations Can Stave Off Rejection
Law360
Read Article →ChatGPT Meets the POSITA: How AI Is Reshaping the Foundations of Patent Law
The Legal Intelligencer
Read Article →Open Source, Closed Door: Managing Patent Risk in Open Source (OSS)-Driven Products
The Legal Intelligencer
Read Article →Related Divergent Patent Law Blog Articles
From Korean “Technical Ideas” to U.S. “Practical Applications”: § 101 Strategy for Software and AI Patent Applications
Brandon Theiss
Read Article →
Written for the Skilled Artisan, Read by Everyone: Drafting Patent Applications for Multiple Audiences
Brandon Theiss
Read Article →
Reframing Patent Eligibility: U.S. § 101 Case Law Through the Lens of Japanese Technicality Doctrine
Brandon Theiss
Read Article →
Lean Patent Operations: Jidoka, Automation, and AI in Patent-Prosecution Workflows
Brandon Theiss
Read Article →
SMEDs After the USPTO’s 2026 Guidance: Rule 132 Declarations, Corroboration, and the Need for a Court-Ready § 101 Record
Brandon Theiss
Read Article →
Get In Touch
Whether you are developing a new patent portfolio, transferring existing prosecution work, preparing for a product launch, or responding to a challenge against an issued patent, we would welcome the opportunity to discuss your objectives.
Submit an InquiryPlease do not include confidential information in an initial inquiry. An attorney-client relationship is formed only through a written engagement agreement.