Patent & IP Resources — Austin, Texas
A curated reference library of the most useful patent and intellectual property resources available — from official USPTO filing tools and international patent databases to prior art search platforms, inventor organizations, and Austin's technology ecosystem. Every resource on this page has been selected and annotated by a USPTO-registered patent attorney with a physics degree from UT Austin and 17 years of prosecution experience.
Home → Resources
[ USPTO Resources ]
[ International Resources ]
[ Austin & Texas Connections ]
[ Inventor Resources ]
[ Legal Resources ]
[ Frequently Asked Questions ]
Question: What is the best free tool for searching patents before filing?
Answer: Google Patents at patents.google.com is the most accessible starting point for inventors doing preliminary research — it covers international patents from multiple countries with full-text search going back to 1790 and is far more user-friendly than legacy USPTO database tools. For US-specific coverage the USPTO's Patent Full-Text and Image Database at patents.uspto.gov provides the most complete official record. For technically sophisticated inventions in semiconductor, software, optics, and medical device fields, these databases are necessary but not sufficient — the most relevant prior art is frequently buried in IEEE technical publications, arXiv preprints, conference proceedings, and international filings that keyword-based patent searches miss entirely. A preliminary Google Patents search is a reasonable first step. A professional prior art search conducted by an attorney with genuine engineering expertise in your technology area is what actually informs a defensible patent strategy.
Question: What resources does the USPTO provide for inventors considering filing a patent application?
Answer: The USPTO offers several useful official resources at uspto.gov. The Patent Center is the official electronic filing system for all patent applications. The USPTO's patent search tools — including Patent Full-Text and Full-Page Image databases — allow inventors to search granted patents and published applications. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure at mpep.uspto.gov is the official guide to USPTO rules and examination practices that patent attorneys rely on daily — it is publicly available and comprehensive, though dense reading for non-practitioners. The USPTO also publishes fee schedules, form documents, and examination guidelines that provide useful background context. These resources tell you what the patent system requires. What they cannot tell you is whether your specific invention is patentable, how to draft claims that provide genuine competitive protection, or how to navigate examination in the specific art unit where your application will land — which is where professional prosecution counsel becomes essential.
Question: How do I evaluate whether a patent attorney is technically qualified to handle my specific invention?
Answer: The most important question to ask any patent attorney you are considering is what their technical background actually is — not just whether they passed the patent bar, but whether they have genuine engineering or science experience in your specific technology area. The USPTO requires patent practitioners to hold a qualifying technical degree, but the breadth of qualifying degrees means that an attorney with a general biology degree may be registered to handle semiconductor patents despite having no relevant engineering expertise. For technically complex inventions — semiconductor devices, AI systems, optical instruments, medical devices, advanced mechanical systems — the quality of the prior art search, the accuracy of the specification, the precision of the claim language, and the credibility of prosecution arguments all depend directly on the attorney's technical understanding of what you have built. Ask for the attorney's undergraduate degree and field, any industry engineering experience before law school, and the specific technology areas where they have active prosecution experience. These questions distinguish technically sophisticated patent counsel from practitioners who handle any technology area regardless of their actual depth.
Question: What is the best way to use Google Patents for prior art research before meeting with a patent attorney?
Answer: Google Patents at patents.google.com is the most accessible starting point for inventors doing preliminary prior art research — and using it effectively before your consultation makes that conversation significantly more productive. The most useful approach is to search for the specific technical problem your invention solves rather than the specific solution you developed. Searching for your solution — which you conceived independently — tends to find patents that describe different solutions to the same problem rather than patents that describe your specific approach. Searching for the problem reveals the landscape of how others have attempted to solve it, which is the prior art that matters most. Save the five to ten most relevant results you find and bring them to the consultation — they give me a starting point for the professional search and help me understand what you already know about the prior art landscape in your technology area.
Answer: The USPTO Patent Center at patentcenter.uspto.gov is the USPTO's current electronic filing and application management system — the replacement for the legacy EFS-Web system that was retired in 2023. Patent Center consolidates filing, application status monitoring, and document management into a single interface with improved search functionality and a more modern user experience than EFS-Web provided. For inventors and companies managing existing applications previously filed through EFS-Web, all application data migrated to Patent Center and is accessible through the same application number. The most practically important Patent Center features for Austin inventors and companies monitoring their own applications are the real-time application status tracking, the ability to view the complete file wrapper including all correspondence between the USPTO and the applicant's attorney, and the fee payment interface for maintenance fees and other USPTO payments.
Question: What is the USPTO Patent Center and how is it different from the old EFS-Web system that many Austin inventors have used?
Question: What is the MPEP and when should an inventor actually read it versus relying on their attorney?
Answer: The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure at mpep.uspto.gov is the USPTO's official guide to patent examination — the reference that both patent examiners and patent attorneys use to understand the rules governing every aspect of prosecution. Most inventors have no reason to read the MPEP directly — that is exactly what you hire a patent attorney for. However there are specific situations where an inventor's familiarity with specific MPEP sections adds genuine value to the prosecution relationship. If your application receives an Office Action citing a specific 35 U.S.C. section — 101, 102, 103, or 112 — reading the corresponding MPEP chapter gives you context for understanding why the examiner raised that rejection and what the legal standard is for overcoming it. If you are managing your own prosecution as a pro se applicant — which I generally advise against for technically complex inventions — the MPEP is the essential reference for understanding your procedural obligations and options at each stage.
Question: What is Espacenet and when should I use it instead of Google Patents for prior art research?
Answer: Espacenet at epo.org/en/searching-for-patents/technical/espacenet is the European Patent Office's patent database — one of the most comprehensive patent search resources available and the preferred tool for several specific research situations where Google Patents falls short. Espacenet is most valuable when you need to search patents filed in languages other than English — it covers extensive European, Asian, and international filings with machine translation into English for many document types. For semiconductor, automotive, and industrial technology patents where significant prior art originates from German, Japanese, Korean, and Chinese assignees, Espacenet's international coverage finds relevant prior art that English-only Google Patents searches miss. Espacenet also provides more granular CPC classification-based searching than Google Patents — which is the professional searching methodology that finds relevant patents using technical classification codes rather than keyword queries. For inventors in Austin's technology community with exposure to international markets, Espacenet is a valuable complement to Google Patents for preliminary research.
Question: What is the PTAB e-Proceedings website and why is it relevant to Austin technology companies?
Answer: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board's e-Proceedings portal at ptab.uspto.gov is the official access point for all PTAB trial proceedings — inter partes reviews, post-grant reviews, covered business method reviews, and ex parte appeals. For Austin technology companies it is relevant in three specific ways. First, any company facing a patent infringement assertion can use PTAB e-Proceedings to research whether the asserted patents have already been challenged at the PTAB — finding prior IPR petitions and their outcomes, which affects the strategic assessment of the patent's vulnerability. Second, companies monitoring competitor patent portfolios can track whether competitors' key patents have been petitioned for IPR — which affects the competitive landscape assessment. Third, companies whose own patents are asserted against others can monitor whether those assertees have filed IPR petitions challenging their patents. The PTAB's proceedings database is publicly accessible and searching it takes approximately five minutes — it is one of the first research steps I conduct when evaluating any patent assertion situation.
Question: What is PatentsView and how can Austin technology companies use it for competitive patent intelligence?
Answer: PatentsView at patentsview.org is a USPTO-supported data visualization and analytics platform that provides structured access to US patent data in formats that enable competitive intelligence analysis beyond what standard patent database searching supports. The most practically useful PatentsView features for Austin technology companies include: assignee-level patent portfolio analysis — searching all patents assigned to a specific company or individual and analyzing the portfolio's technology distribution, filing trends, and geographic coverage; inventor network analysis — identifying which engineers or researchers at a competitor company are most productively inventing and in what specific technology areas; technology area trend analysis — visualizing patent filing trends in specific CPC classification categories over time to identify emerging technology areas before they become crowded; and citation network analysis — identifying which patents in a technology area are most heavily cited by subsequent filings, which correlates with foundational technology importance. For Austin semiconductor, software, and medical device companies building competitive intelligence programs, PatentsView provides analytical capabilities that standard patent database searching does not.
Question: What are the most important USPTO fee deadlines that every Austin inventor should know about even if they have an attorney managing their prosecution?
Answer: While your patent attorney tracks and manages all USPTO deadlines on your behalf, understanding the most consequential deadline categories helps you appreciate the urgency when your attorney flags an imminent deadline and request prompt responses. The deadlines with the most severe consequences for missing them include: Office Action response deadlines — typically three months extendable to six months, after which the application is abandoned; issue fee payment after a Notice of Allowance — three months with a six-month maximum extension, after which an allowed application goes abandoned and may or may not be revivable; the 12-month provisional conversion deadline — absolute and unextendable, after which international patent rights are permanently lost in most foreign countries; the 30-month PCT national phase entry deadline — missing this permanently closes national phase entry in the missed country with limited revival options; and patent maintenance fee payments at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years after grant — each with a six-month grace period after which the patent expires and revival requires showing unintentional delay. I proactively notify every client of approaching deadlines well in advance — but understanding why I occasionally communicate urgency about specific deadlines helps you respond promptly when the timeline is genuinely tight.
[ Schedule a Free Consultation ]
Patent Resources
The resources on this page are a starting point — but navigating the patent system effectively requires more than the right links. It requires an attorney who understands your technology at a fundamental level, who knows which resources are most useful for your specific situation, and who can translate what those resources reveal into a patent strategy aligned with your business goals.
I offer a free 30-minute phone consultation to Austin inventors, startups, and technology companies at every stage — whether you have never filed a patent application and want to understand the process, or whether you have an active prosecution portfolio and want a second opinion on strategy.
With a physics degree from the University of Texas at Austin, seven years as a semiconductor manufacturing process engineer specializing in laser lithography, and 17 years of USPTO prosecution experience across semiconductor, software, medical device, and mechanical technology areas, I bring the technical depth and legal experience that Austin's innovation ecosystem deserves.
Call or text (512) 293-0710, email sconnolly@austin-patent-attorney.com, or fill out the form to schedule your free consultation. Consultations are available Monday through Friday, 1:00pm to 4:00pm Central Time.
All discussions are confidential under attorney-client privilege. No obligation.
Phone: 512-293-0710
Email: sconnolly@austin-patent-attorney.com
Location: Austin, Texas
Serving Austin, Round Rock, Cedar Park, Georgetown, and all of Central Texas.
USPTO matters are federal — I work with clients throughout Texas and nationwide.