PCT International Patent Attorney — Austin, Texas
Protecting your inventions in international markets through the Patent Cooperation Treaty — with over 17 years of USPTO and international patent filing experience.
Home → Practice Areas → PCT International Patents
International Patent Protection — A Practitioner's Strategic Framework
The decision to pursue international patent protection is among the most consequential and most poorly understood IP decisions that technology companies face. The PCT system — the Patent Cooperation Treaty administered by WIPO — provides the mechanism through which most international patent programs are initiated, but the PCT filing itself is just the beginning of a process that requires strategic thinking about markets, competitive dynamics, filing costs, prosecution timelines, and the interaction between US prosecution and prosecution in each national patent office where protection is ultimately sought.
I approach international patent strategy the way I approach US prosecution — starting from genuine technical understanding of the invention and building outward to the legal framework. For technically complex inventions in semiconductor, optics, software, and medical device fields, the technical substance of the invention determines which foreign examination authorities are most relevant, which prior art databases need to be searched to assess international patentability, and how claims need to be structured to satisfy the different examination standards that different national patent offices apply.
Seventeen years of US patent prosecution, combined with ongoing coordination with foreign associate counsel in Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and China on national phase matters, has given me a practical understanding of how different patent offices examine technically complex inventions — an understanding grounded in actual prosecution experience rather than theoretical knowledge of foreign patent law. I know how the EPO examines semiconductor patents differently than the USPTO does, how the JPO approaches software claims, how KIPO handles AI applications, and how CNIPA's examination standards for optical technologies have evolved in ways that affect claim drafting strategy for Chinese national phase applications. That practical knowledge is what I bring to PCT strategy discussions with clients who need to make consequential international filing decisions efficiently.
The PCT Process in Technical Detail — What Clients Need to Understand
The PCT process involves a series of procedural stages — international filing, international search, optional international examination, and national phase entry — that unfold over 30 months from the priority date and that create strategic decision points at each stage. Understanding what happens at each stage and what strategic options are available informs better decision-making throughout the process.
The international search report and written opinion — the most consequential documents produced during the international phase — are generated by the International Searching Authority, typically within 16 to 18 months of the international filing date. The ISA for applications filed through the USPTO as receiving office is typically the USPTO acting in its ISA capacity, though applicants can choose alternative ISAs including the EPO in some circumstances. The ISA's written opinion on patentability — specifically, its assessment of novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability — provides advance intelligence about the prior art arguments that national phase examiners in multiple jurisdictions will likely raise, allowing me to refine the prosecution strategy before those arguments are formally raised in national phase examination.
Claim strategy at PCT filing requires balancing the objectives of US prosecution — where claims must navigate Alice/Mayo for software and AI inventions — with the different claim drafting requirements of European, Japanese, Korean, and Chinese examination. EPO examination requires claims with technical character and a technical effect achieved by the claimed invention — a requirement that overlaps with but is not identical to the US Alice/Mayo framework. JPO examination for AI and software claims follows Japanese examination guidelines that differ in specific ways from both USPTO and EPO standards. I draft PCT applications with the major national phase destinations specifically in mind — structuring claims and specifications that position the application favorably across the multiple examination standards it will face rather than optimizing for US prosecution alone.
National Phase Strategy — Market-by-Market Decisions
The 30-month window provided by the PCT process is designed to give applicants time to assess which national phase entries are commercially justified — but in practice, the complexity of the market analysis and the significance of the financial commitments involved mean that this decision deserves systematic attention rather than last-minute choices driven by deadline pressure.
The market-by-market analysis I conduct with clients preparing for national phase entry addresses several specific questions for each candidate jurisdiction. First, where are the competitors who might infringe the patent — manufacturing their products, selling into commercial markets, or conducting the technical activities covered by the claims? A patent is a right to exclude activity within the jurisdiction that granted it, which means the value of national phase entry in a given country depends directly on whether meaningful infringing activity will occur there. Second, where are the customers who will pay premium prices for products embodying the patented technology, and does the patent system in those markets provide meaningful protection and enforcement options? Third, what are the translation requirements, filing fees, local prosecution costs, and ongoing maintenance costs associated with national phase entry in each candidate jurisdiction — and how do those costs compare to the commercial value of protection in that market?
For semiconductor and electronics inventions, the national phase map almost always includes the United States, the EPO covering key European markets, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan — reflecting where the major chipmakers, electronics OEMs, and semiconductor equipment manufacturers that are the most likely infringers operate. For medical device inventions, the US, EPO, Japan, Canada, and Australia — the primary regulated markets for medical devices with robust reimbursement systems and meaningful IP enforcement — are the standard priorities. For software and AI inventions, the US, EPO, and increasingly China — where AI patent filings have grown explosively and where major technology companies are building significant competitive patent positions — are the core markets, with additional jurisdictions depending on the company's specific commercial footprint.
European Patent Office — Navigating the EPO's Distinct Framework
The European Patent Office administers a patent system that covers up to 44 European countries through a single examination process — and that applies examination standards meaningfully different from USPTO examination in ways that affect both claim drafting strategy and prosecution approach for technically complex inventions.
EPO examination requires that patent claims have technical character — they must relate to a technical field, involve a technical problem, and solve that technical problem through technical means. This technical character requirement is applied with particular rigor to software and AI inventions, which the EPO has historically been more restrictive about than the USPTO. The EPO's approach to software patentability — specifically, the requirement that software claims produce a technical effect that goes beyond the normal physical interactions of software running on hardware — requires claim drafting that explicitly frames software innovations in terms of the technical problems they solve and the technical effects they achieve. This framing is not mere legal window dressing — it requires genuine technical understanding of what the software innovation actually accomplishes at a computing system level.
For semiconductor and electronics inventions before the EPO, the examination standards are more favorable — genuinely novel circuit architectures, fabrication processes, and device designs are generally patentable under EPO standards without the additional technical character hurdles that software and AI inventions face. The EPO's approach to semiconductor patent claims rewards the kind of technical precision in claim drafting that my semiconductor engineering background enables — describing circuit and process innovations with the engineering specificity that distinguishes genuine novelty from incremental variation in a technically dense prior art landscape.
Post-grant European patent validation — the process of translating and registering a granted EP patent in each European country where protection is desired — is a cost and administrative burden that applicants must plan for when developing European patent strategy. The London Agreement has reduced translation requirements for some countries, but validation in major markets including Germany, France, the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland still involves country-specific filing requirements and fees that add substantially to the cost of EP patent protection.
Asian Patent Markets — Japan, South Korea, China, and Taiwan
The Asian patent markets represent the most commercially significant international patent landscape for Austin's semiconductor, electronics, and AI companies — and the most technically demanding to navigate because each major Asian patent office applies distinct examination standards that require jurisdiction-specific prosecution strategies.
Japan Patent Office examination is characterized by highly detailed technical examination and a preference for claim language that is more specifically supported in the specification than USPTO examination typically requires. JPO examiners are technically sophisticated and examine prior art in both Japanese and international technical literature — including academic papers and conference proceedings in Japanese that represent a substantial prior art body for many technology areas. For semiconductor and electronics inventions, the JPO is a critical filing destination given Japan's significant role in the global semiconductor supply chain, advanced materials technology, and electronic component manufacturing.
Korean Intellectual Property Office examination has become increasingly important for semiconductor, display technology, and consumer electronics innovations given South Korea's position as home to Samsung and SK Hynix — two of the world's most significant semiconductor and memory companies. KIPO examination for semiconductor patents involves technically sophisticated examiners with specific expertise in DRAM, NAND flash, logic chip design, and display technology — the areas where Korean companies hold world-leading positions and where competitor patent protection is most commercially valuable.
China National Intellectual Property Administration examination for software and AI patents has evolved significantly over the past several years — shifting from a system that was broadly skeptical of software and AI claims to one that has developed specific examination guidelines for AI applications that parallel but differ from both USPTO and EPO standards. For Austin AI companies with Chinese market presence or Chinese investor relationships, Chinese patent protection has become increasingly important — both for its commercial value in the Chinese market and for its significance in licensing and investment negotiations with Chinese parties.
Coordinating International Protection With US Prosecution
The most practically important aspect of international patent strategy that client-facing discussions frequently underemphasize is the coordination between US prosecution and international prosecution — specifically, the way that prosecution decisions in one jurisdiction can affect claim scope in other jurisdictions through prosecution history estoppel and international equivalents.
Claim amendments made in US prosecution to overcome prior art rejections can narrow the scope of US claims below what might be obtainable in other jurisdictions where the same prior art is less relevant or where examination standards differ. Conversely, claim amendments made in EPO or JPO examination can create arguments that affect US prosecution strategy if the applications share prosecution history through the PCT process. Managing this coordination — making prosecution decisions in each jurisdiction with full awareness of their implications for other pending applications in the same family — requires both knowledge of each jurisdiction's prosecution standards and systematic communication with the foreign associate counsel handling national phase prosecution.
For Austin technology companies with active international portfolios, I provide ongoing coordination between US prosecution and national phase prosecution in key markets — reviewing foreign associate correspondence and strategies, advising on US prosecution decisions with international implications, and ensuring that the patent family develops coherent claim coverage across jurisdictions rather than fragmented protection that reflects uncoordinated prosecution decisions.
The financial reality of international patent maintenance — the maintenance fees that must be paid in each jurisdiction to keep granted patents in force, the annuity costs that accumulate across a large international portfolio, and the strategic rationalization decisions about which patents to maintain and which to let lapse — is an ongoing portfolio management responsibility that I address explicitly in fractional IP counsel engagements and as a standalone portfolio management service.
Call or text (512) 293-0710, email sconnolly@austin-patent-attorney.com, or fill out the contact form to discuss your international patent strategy.
[ PCT International Patent FAQs — Austin, Texas ]
Question: Can I protect my invention internationally?
Answer: Yes — through the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) you can file a single international application that preserves your right to pursue patents in over 150 countries. The PCT process gives you up to 30 months from your priority date to decide which countries to enter, allowing time to assess commercial markets and raise funding before committing to national phase costs.
Question: How much does international patent protection cost?
Answer: International patent protection involves PCT filing fees, international search fees, and national phase entry fees in each country you choose — plus local attorney fees and translation costs where required. The costs can be substantial, which is why strategic selection of target markets is important. I help clients evaluate which international markets make sense for their specific invention and business goals.
Question: Do I need a separate patent in each country?
Answer: Yes — there is no single world patent. A US patent only protects your invention in the United States. The PCT process streamlines the early stages but you ultimately need to enter the national phase in each country where you want protection. I help Austin companies think strategically about which international markets justify the investment.
Question: What is the difference between the EPO's examination approach and the USPTO's approach for the same technology?
The EPO and USPTO apply meaningfully different examination standards that affect claim strategy across the same patent family. The EPO's problem-solution approach to inventive step — which formally structures the obviousness analysis around the objective technical problem solved by the distinguishing features — differs from the USPTO's Graham v. John Deere framework in ways that affect how prior art combinations are evaluated and what claim amendments effectively overcome rejections. The EPO also applies a stricter added matter standard — amendments must be clearly and directly derivable from the original application, a standard that is more demanding than the USPTO's written description requirement in some respects. For software and AI claims, the EPO's technical character requirement produces different eligibility analysis than Alice/Mayo. I coordinate claim strategy across both offices specifically — taking positions in each jurisdiction that are legally correct under the applicable standard rather than mechanically applying US prosecution strategy to European examination.
Question: Can a PCT application protect my invention in every country I want to sell my product?
Answer: No — not entirely. The PCT covers over 150 member countries, an extraordinarily broad geographic reach, but several commercially significant jurisdictions require separate direct filings outside the PCT framework. Most importantly for Austin technology companies, Taiwan is not a PCT member — a separate direct filing with the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office, within 12 months of the priority date under the Paris Convention, is required for Taiwanese patent protection. For semiconductor, electronics, and technology companies with exposure to the Taiwanese market — given TSMC, MediaTek, and the broader Taiwanese technology ecosystem — missing the Taiwan direct filing deadline because of reliance on PCT coverage is a consequential and entirely avoidable error. For comprehensive international coverage that includes Taiwan, I advise clients to file both a PCT application covering the majority of target markets and a direct Taiwan national application within that same 12-month window. I flag Taiwan filing requirements for every client whose technology has potential Taiwanese commercial significance.
Question: What is the international search report and how should I use it strategically?
Answer: The international search report — produced by the international searching authority as part of PCT prosecution, typically received within 16 to 18 months after the international filing date — identifies prior art that the searching authority considers relevant to the novelty and inventive step of the PCT claims and is accompanied by a written opinion providing a preliminary patentability assessment. The ISR is strategically valuable in several ways. The prior art citations in the ISR inform claim amendment strategy before national phase entry — you can amend claims during the international phase to address the cited art and enter national phases with a stronger starting position. The written opinion's patentability assessment can support Patent Prosecution Highway requests in national phase countries that participate in PPH with the ISA. And the ISR provides advance intelligence about the prior art landscape that the national phase examiners are likely to cite, allowing coordinated prosecution strategy across jurisdictions.
Question: What happens to my US patent application if I file a PCT application claiming the same priority date?
Answer: Filing a PCT application that claims priority to an earlier US provisional or non-provisional application does not replace or affect that US application — the two prosecutions run in parallel through separate tracks, each retaining the same priority date for prior art purposes. The US application continues its own prosecution timeline independently, while the PCT filing preserves your international options. When the PCT application later enters the US national phase — typically at 30 months from the priority date — that national phase entry is treated like any other continuation application, giving you the option of having two pending US applications based on the same disclosure, which can be coordinated for strategic continuation purposes. Critically, the US national phase application can be filed with amended claims that differ from your original PCT claims — letting you optimize US claim strategy based on the international search report and written opinion before committing to a final claim set in US examination.
Question: What is a demand for international preliminary examination (IPEA), and when does it make sense for Austin technology companies?
Answer: A demand for international preliminary examination — filed with WIPO before the 22-month deadline from the priority date — initiates a more detailed patentability assessment from the international examining authority, beyond the initial written opinion that accompanies the international search report. The result is an international preliminary report on patentability (IPRP), providing claim-by-claim analysis of novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability. Whether it's worth requesting depends entirely on the written opinion results: if the initial written opinion is already favorable, IPEA adds cost without proportional benefit. If it raises substantive patentability objections, IPEA gives you the opportunity to make amendments and arguments at the international stage that improve your starting position in every designated country simultaneously — before you've committed to national phase prosecution anywhere. For Austin companies entering multiple major markets at once — US, EPO, Japan, Korea, and China — a favorable IPEA outcome can meaningfully streamline prosecution across all five jurisdictions, since national examiners give real weight to a positive international patentability record.
Question: How do you coordinate claim strategy between US continuation applications and PCT national phase applications in the same family?
Answer: Coordinating continuation and national phase prosecution requires treating the patent family as a unified strategic portfolio rather than a collection of independent applications. Claim amendments made in US prosecution to overcome prior art create prosecution history estoppel that affects how the same claims are interpreted in enforcement — which means US prosecution decisions have implications beyond the US application. Conversely, favorable claim constructions established in EPO or JPO examination can inform US continuation claim drafting. I maintain coordinated prosecution records for all family members and communicate specifically with foreign associates about the implications of US prosecution history for national phase prosecution strategy — ensuring that each jurisdiction's prosecution decisions strengthen rather than inadvertently undermine the family's overall claim scope.
Question: What is the difference between a PCT application and a European patent application?
Answer: A PCT application is not an application to a specific patent office — it is an international filing that preserves your right to enter the national phase in any of 150+ member countries. A European patent application is filed directly with the European Patent Office and, if granted, can be validated in up to 44 European countries through national validation. The two approaches are not mutually exclusive — most companies filing internationally file a PCT application first and then use the PCT application as the basis for entering the European regional phase at the EPO within the 30-month PCT window. Filing a Euro-PCT national phase entry through the EPO is the standard approach for companies seeking European patent protection as part of a broader international strategy.
Question: What happens to my patent rights if I talk about my invention at a networking event or pitch competition?
Answer: In the United States, a public disclosure of your invention starts a one-year clock — you have 12 months from that disclosure to file a US patent application or your rights are permanently lost. However, in the US, the first party to file a patent application for an invention is entitled to the patent, so you want to make sure you are the first to file. Also, that one-year grace period does not exist in most foreign countries. A single public disclosure before filing permanently destroys your ability to obtain patent protection in Europe, Japan, South Korea, China, and most other jurisdictions regardless of whether you later file within 12 months. My consistent advice is to file at least a provisional patent application before any public disclosure — pitch competitions, investor presentations, conference talks, product demonstrations, or published papers.
Question: How does PCT prosecution affect patent term in each country?
Answer: The 20-year patent term in most countries is measured from the PCT international filing date — not the national phase entry date. This means that the 30-month delay from priority date to national phase entry consumes patent term. A patent that enters national phase at 30 months has approximately 17.5 years of remaining term from the national phase entry date, rather than the full 20 years that would be available if the national application had been filed directly on day one. For inventions with long regulatory approval timelines — particularly medical devices and pharmaceuticals — this terminal term reduction can be significant. Some countries — including the US — provide patent term adjustment for regulatory delays that partially compensates for this reduction.
Question: What languages do I need to file my PCT application in?
Answer: The PCT application can be filed in any of several official PCT languages including English, French, German, Spanish, Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Russian, Arabic, and Portuguese. For US applicants filing through the USPTO as receiving office, English is the standard filing language. English-language PCT applications avoid the translation costs that would be required for applications filed in other languages. When entering national phases in countries requiring local language translations — Japan, Korea, China, France, Germany — translation costs are incurred at the national phase entry stage rather than at PCT filing. The EPO accepts applications in English, French, or German and requires translation into another EPO official language only if the granted patent requires national validation in countries whose official language differs from the application language.
Question: What happens if I miss the 30-month PCT national phase entry deadline?
Answer: Missing the 30-month national phase entry deadline results in the PCT application being considered withdrawn with respect to the missed jurisdiction — the international application effectively lapses for that country. Revival is possible in some jurisdictions through petitions for restoration of rights based on unintentional abandonment, but revival procedures vary significantly by country and are not available in all PCT member states. The EPO, for example, has a limited revival procedure; the USPTO allows revival through petition. Prevention is far preferable to revival — I maintain a rigorous deadline tracking system for all PCT matters and provide reminders well in advance of critical deadlines.
Question: What is the role of foreign associates in my international patent prosecution?
Answer: When a PCT application enters the national phase in a foreign country, local patent counsel — called foreign associates — is required for prosecution in that jurisdiction. Foreign associates are licensed to practice before their national patent office and handle local language requirements, national filing procedures, local prosecution correspondence, and payment of local fees. I work with networks of qualified foreign associates in all major patent markets and coordinate US prosecution strategy with their local prosecution to ensure coherent claim development across jurisdictions. I manage the foreign associate relationships on behalf of my US clients — briefing associates on prosecution strategy, reviewing their work product, and providing instructions on claim positions — so my clients have a single point of contact for their global patent program.
Question: How does the EPO's Unified Patent Court affect international patent strategy for European markets?
Answer: The Unified Patent Court, which became operational in June 2023, fundamentally changed European patent enforcement by creating a single court with jurisdiction over European patents in most EU member states. A central attack on a European patent at the UPC — if successful — can invalidate the patent across all participating member states simultaneously, unlike the previous system where each country's patents had to be challenged individually in that country's courts. This creates both risk — a single successful challenge can eliminate coverage across much of Europe — and opportunity — a single UPC infringement action can provide injunctive relief across the participating states. For US clients with European patents, the UPC's existence is now a standard consideration in European patent prosecution and enforcement strategy.
Question: Can I file a PCT application on behalf of a foreign inventor who lives outside the US?
Answer: PCT applications can be filed through any national or regional patent office of a member country where the applicant or inventor is a resident or national. A foreign inventor who has no US connection would typically file their PCT application through their home country's national patent office as the receiving office. However, if a foreign inventor assigns their application to a US company — or if the invention was made in the US — filing through the USPTO as receiving office is appropriate. I work with foreign inventors and international law firms as US correspondent counsel, handling US national phase entries from PCT applications filed through any receiving office regardless of where the original application was filed.
Question: How do I coordinate patent strategy for a product that will be manufactured in one country and sold in another?
Answer: Manufacturing location and sales market are both relevant to patent strategy but in different ways. A patent in the country of manufacture protects against unauthorized manufacturing of patented products — enforcement would be against the manufacturer. A patent in the country of sale protects against unauthorized importation and sale of patented products — enforcement would be against the importer or seller. Comprehensive protection for a global supply chain product typically requires patents in both the manufacturing jurisdiction and the primary sales markets. The specific countries that warrant patent investment depend on your product's supply chain geography and the competitive dynamics of your market.
Question: What is the Paris Convention priority claim and how do I use it correctly?
Answer: The Paris Convention allows an inventor who files a patent application in one member country to file corresponding applications in other member countries within 12 months — claiming the filing date of the first application as the priority date for the subsequent filings. To correctly claim Paris Convention priority you must identify the first-filed application by country, application number, and filing date in each subsequent application filed within 12 months. The priority document — a certified copy of the first-filed application — must be filed in each subsequent application within specified time limits. For PCT applications claiming Paris Convention priority from a US provisional or non-provisional application, the priority claim and priority document submission are handled as part of the PCT international filing process.
Question: How are patent rights enforced internationally — can a US patent be enforced in Japan?
Answer: A US patent can only be enforced in the United States — it has no legal force in Japan or any other foreign country. To enforce patent rights in Japan you need a Japanese patent. To enforce in Europe you need European national patents (or a Unitary Patent covering EU member states). This is the fundamental reason why international patent protection requires filings in each jurisdiction — there is no world patent that provides international enforcement rights. For companies whose products are manufactured or sold internationally, building an international patent portfolio in the relevant markets is the only way to achieve enforceable patent rights across those markets.
Question: What international patent filing strategy makes sense for a pre-revenue startup with limited budget?
Answer: For pre-revenue startups with limited IP budget, the most cost-effective international strategy is to file a US provisional application first — establishing priority at relatively low cost — and then file a PCT application within 12 months using the provisional's priority date. The PCT filing preserves international options for 30 months from the priority date without committing to national phase costs in any specific country, giving the startup roughly 2.5 years to assess commercial traction, raise funding, and make informed decisions about which markets actually warrant national phase investment. During that window, I advise clients on monitoring competitive developments in each candidate jurisdiction, so that eventual national phase entry decisions are driven by real commercial intelligence rather than blanket geographic coverage that spends limited IP budget on markets that don't justify it. The foundational PCT filing itself is the one decision that shouldn't be compromised on quality, even on a tight budget — it's what makes all of this strategic flexibility possible in the first place.
Question: How does translation affect international patent costs and strategy?
Answer: Translation is one of the largest cost components of international patent prosecution. Japan, Korea, and China require translation of patent applications into Japanese, Korean, and Chinese respectively — translations of complex technical applications can cost thousands of dollars per language. Germany, France, and Italy require translation of granted patents for national validation even when the EPO application was filed in English. The London Agreement has reduced some European translation requirements, but validation in non-London Agreement countries still requires translation. I advise clients on minimizing translation costs through strategic national phase selection — focusing resources on markets where patent protection provides sufficient commercial value to justify the translation investment — and through claim drafting strategies that keep application length manageable without sacrificing disclosure quality.
Question: What is the China patent landscape for US technology companies?
Answer: China's patent system has matured significantly over the past decade — with dramatically increased examination quality, a specialized IP court system with meaningful enforcement capability, and growing damages awards that make Chinese patents commercially valuable. For US technology companies with Chinese market presence, manufacturing in China, or partnerships with Chinese companies, Chinese patent protection has become increasingly important. The CNIPA's examination approach for software and AI patents follows Chinese examination guidelines that differ from both the USPTO and EPO, requiring claim drafting specifically adapted for Chinese examination practice. I coordinate Chinese national phase prosecution through qualified Chinese patent attorneys who advise on CNIPA-specific claim strategies.
[ Related Services ]
Clients filing internationally often also work with me on:
[Software & AI Patents] · [Semiconductor & Electronics Patents] · [Medical Device & Biotech Patents] · [International Patent Strategy] · [USPTO Filing for Foreign Applicants] · [Patent Portfolio Management]
[ Schedule a Free Consultation ]
PCT International Patent Services
If your invention has commercial potential beyond the United States — in the semiconductor markets of East Asia, the medical device markets of Europe and Japan, the software and AI markets where competition is genuinely global — protecting it internationally requires both strategic clarity about which markets matter and genuine technical depth in prosecuting complex inventions before foreign patent offices that apply different examination standards than the USPTO.
I have guided Austin inventors, funded startups, and corporate IP teams through the PCT process and national phase prosecution in key markets including the European Patent Office, Japan Patent Office, Korean Intellectual Property Office, China National Intellectual Property Administration, and Taiwan Intellectual Property Office.
My semiconductor engineering background — seven years as a manufacturing process engineer specializing in laser lithography — is particularly relevant for international prosecution of the technically complex inventions that dominate Austin's innovation economy, because semiconductor, software, and optical technology patents face technically sophisticated examination across all major patent jurisdictions. The 30-month window that PCT provides is not just cost deferral — it is a strategic resource that, used correctly, gives you international search intelligence to refine your prosecution strategy, time to assess which markets genuinely justify national phase investment, and the ability to coordinate US and international prosecution for coherent claim coverage across jurisdictions.
I help clients make international patent decisions that are calibrated to their actual competitive footprint and commercial goals rather than reflexive broad filings that spend IP budget on jurisdictions that provide no meaningful competitive value.
I offer a free 30-minute consultation to assess your invention's international patent opportunity, map the relevant competitive landscape across key markets, and develop a filing strategy that protects your technology where it matters most.
Call or text (512) 293-0710, email sconnolly@austin-patent-attorney.com, or fill out the form.
All discussions are confidential under attorney-client privilege.
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.