Workflow template for legal and contracts
Invention disclosure brief for patent counsel
Before the first call with patent counsel, the founder or engineering lead has one factual brief: the invention in the inventor's words, who contributed what and when, every outside demonstration, sale, talk or publication with its date and audience, and the records still missing. Counsel decides.
This workflow template prepares legal work for a lawyer to review. It gives no legal advice and has not been reviewed by a lawyer. A lawyer decides and signs.
Listed under
Add it to a workflow in the Fully Powered Planner, beside the teams and roles that will run it. Book a fit call
The outcome
Patent counsel's first hour goes on the questions only counsel can answer, because the facts arrive already gathered. The brief sets out what was made and how it works, quoted from the inventor and located paragraph by paragraph. It lists everyone the records show contributing, with what they did, when, and the record that shows it, and it puts beside them anyone the records mention who is not on the list, such as a customer's engineer who suggested part of the design. It lays every dated event in one line of dates and shows where two records disagree. It lists every time the invention was shown, sold, offered, published or talked about outside the company, with the date and audience copied from your own log, and anything mentioned elsewhere that the log missed.
The founder or engineering lead also gets a list of the records that are missing, each with who probably holds it, so the gaps close before counsel asks.
This is preparation for a lawyer, and it stays preparation. It gives no legal advice. It decides nothing about legal meaning, merit, validity, privilege, conflicts or deadlines. It never says an invention is new, patentable or owned by anyone, never says who counts as an inventor, gives no view on filing or its timing, and counts no date. It runs no search. It sends, files, signs and calendars nothing. Asked for a verdict, a date, a case or what to do, it says only that the question is for the named patent counsel and points to the line in the brief that holds that decision for counsel; it never says which records, dates or occasions bear on the question, or what anyone may rely on. Every brief is headed as a draft for the named patent counsel, with a line for each point counsel confirms.
Who starts the work, and when
The founder, engineering lead or R&D manager starts it when someone in the company believes they have made something worth showing to patent counsel, and before the first meeting with counsel. It suits the moment an engineer says "I think we invented something", a demo or a trade show is coming up, or a customer trial has just ended.
Patent counsel decides everything that follows: whether to search, whether and where to file, who is named as an inventor and who owns what. That is in-house patent counsel where the company has one, and otherwise the outside patent counsel the company uses or is engaging. The brief is addressed to counsel and goes to counsel. It is never handed back to the business as an answer.
It is not for judging someone else's patent or product, for deciding whether to file, or for writing any part of a patent application, an assignment or a confidentiality agreement. Questions such as "is this patentable?" or "do we need to file before the show?" are not answered: the note that comes with the brief tells the founder or engineering lead they are for counsel.
What they supply
- The inventor's description, in the inventor's own words: notes, an email or your company's own disclosure form, saying what it is, how it works, the problem it addresses and what the inventor thinks is different.
- The contributor records: who worked on it, in what role, for which organisation at the time, what they contributed, when, and the record that shows it, such as a notebook page, a commit or a drawing.
- The disclosure log: every demonstration, trial, sale, quote, talk, paper, post or investor meeting where anyone outside the company saw it or was offered it, with the date, the audience, what was shown and whether your records note a confidentiality agreement. Planned events belong on it too.
- The records the others point to, as far as you have them.
- The named patent counsel, and counsel's own question list or disclosure form if counsel has sent one.
What comes out
One brief, marked as a draft for patent counsel, in seven parts:
- What was made, in the inventor's words: what it is, how it works, the problem it addresses and what the inventor says is different, each quoted with its paragraph, and any value or part the description refers to without giving.
- Who contributed what, and when: each person as the records show them, and anyone named elsewhere who is not on the list.
- Dated record: every event in date order with its sources, where records disagree, and what has no date.
- Outside disclosures: each one from your log, those mentioned elsewhere and not logged, and those planned, with date, audience, what was shown and your log's own note on any confidentiality agreement.
- Named in the records: any paper, patent, product or rule the records mention, copied and marked for the lawyer to verify.
- Counsel's questions, answered only from the records, where counsel sent a list.
- Open facts: the factual questions the records leave unanswered, each with who can answer it.
Then the lines counsel confirms and a check block, and after the brief, the list of missing records for the founder or engineering lead to collect. The founder or engineering lead checks the brief against the records and sends it to counsel.
An invented example
Illustrative example with invented data. Company A, Customer B, Contractor C, the Event D meetup, Firm E, Customer F, the Event G trade show, every person named below, the invention and every record are invented. Nothing here describes a real product, company, event or person.
Company A makes conveyors and has no lawyer on staff. Its VP Engineering is preparing for a first call with outside patent counsel. Her five inputs come first, in full, then what the workflow template prepares.
Input 1: the preparer's note
From Rosalind Teague, VP Engineering, Company A, on Wednesday 11 November 2026.
Please prepare the invention disclosure brief for Omar's belt drift board
before our first call with patent counsel.
Patent counsel: Joanna Pell, Firm E. Outside patent counsel; we have no
lawyer on staff.
Confidentiality label: Company A Confidential.
Today is Wednesday 11 November 2026.
Attached: Omar's description, the contributor records, the disclosure
log, and the records they point to that I could find. Joanna has not
sent a question list.
Also: do we need to file before the Event G show in December?
Input 2: the inventor's description
Belt drift detection from motor current
Omar Linde, controls engineer. Written 2 November 2026.
1. What it is. A small board that fits inside the motor control cabinet
of our KX conveyors and warns the operator when the belt starts running
off-centre, before the belt edge rubs the frame.
2. How it works. The board samples the drive motor's current 2,000 times
a second. When the belt drifts, a small ripple appears in the current
that repeats once per belt revolution. For the first hour after
installation the board records the normal size of that ripple (the
learned level). After that, if the ripple stays more than the set margin
above the learned level for 3 minutes, it lights the amber lamp and
sends a fault code to the line controller.
3. The problem. Customers usually find out about drift when the belt
edge is already frayed. The optical edge sensors we sell as an option get
coated in dust in flour and cement plants and stop reading.
4. What is different. Nothing has to be mounted near the belt;
everything happens in the cabinet. As far as I know nobody detects belt
drift from the motor current. There was a university paper years ago
about finding bearing faults from motor current, not belts. I can't
remember who wrote it.
5. History. I had the idea after a service call at a customer's Plant 3
and wrote it in my notebook on 12 February. Kit Arrowsmith wrote the
first filter code in April. Mei Sato built the first board in May, and we
ran it on the test rig from 20 May.
6. Outside. We ran the prototype at Customer B's plant in June. I showed
a video of it in my talk at the Event D meetup in September. Sales have
put it in the quote for Customer F.
7. Credit. Teodor at Customer B suggested learning the normal ripple
level after installation instead of using a fixed threshold. We did that.
Input 3: the contributor records
An export with the default headers.
Person | Role | Organisation at the time | Contribution as recorded | Date | Record
Omar Linde | Controls engineer | Company A | Idea: detect belt drift from once-per-revolution ripple in motor current; notebook sketch | 2026-02-12 | Notebook OL-7, p. 41
Kit Arrowsmith | Firmware developer (contract) | Contractor C | First filter code for ripple detection | 2026-04-14 | Commit 3f9a2c1, firmware repository
Mei Sato | Hardware engineer | Company A | Prototype board, revision A | 2026-05-06 | Board drawing BS-A rev A
Rosalind Teague | VP Engineering | Company A | Design review | |
Input 4: the disclosure log
An export with the default headers.
Date | Event | Audience | What was shown or said | Confidentiality agreement as recorded | Record
2026-06-09 to 2026-06-23 | Field trial, Customer B plant, line 2 | Customer B maintenance team | Prototype board fitted; live readings shared daily | Yes: mutual NDA, 28 May 2026 | Trial report TR-14
2026-09-17 | Talk, Event D meetup | About 60 attendees; open registration | 2-minute video of the amber lamp lighting on the test rig; one slide on current ripple | No | Slides and video, not attached
2026-12-03 | Demo on stand, Event G trade show | Trade show visitors | Planned: working conveyor with the board fitted | Not recorded | Stand plan SP-2
Input 5: the records supplied
Notebook OL-7, p. 41
"12 Feb 2026. Plant 3 drift again. Idea: watch motor current for a
once-per-rev ripple? Compare with a baseline per belt."
Commit 3f9a2c1, firmware repository
Date: 2026-04-14. Author: Kit Arrowsmith.
Message: "Add band-pass filter for once-per-rev ripple"
Board drawing BS-A rev A
Title block: "Drift board, rev A. Drawn M. Sato. 6 May 2026."
Trial report TR-14
"Customer B, line 2. Trial 10 to 23 June 2026. Board rev A,
firmware 0.3. Amber lamp lit twice; belt checked both times."
Stand plan SP-2
"Event G, 3 December 2026. Stand 14. Live KX conveyor with drift
board."
What the workflow template prepares
A short note to the preparer, then the brief and the missing-records list.
Rosalind, the brief for Omar's belt drift board is below, with the missing-records list after it. No stop applied. Outside disclosures: 2 logged, 1 mentioned elsewhere and not in the log, 1 planned. Teodor, Customer B, is named in the description, para. 7, and is not in the contributor records. Records differ on the dates of the field trial at Customer B (Disclosure log, row 1; Trial report TR-14). Eight records are missing and nine facts are open.
You asked a question about filing. I have not answered it: it is for Joanna Pell. Counsel to confirm: "Whether to file, where and when: for counsel to decide."
Still to do, by people: check the brief against the records, collect what you can from the missing-records list, get the open facts answered, and send the brief to Joanna Pell. I have sent nothing, searched nothing and counted no date. The brief goes to counsel, not back to the business as an answer.
INVENTION DISCLOSURE BRIEF · DRAFT FOR PATENT COUNSEL TO CONFIRM
For Joanna Pell, outside patent counsel, Firm E.
Gives no legal advice. Decides nothing about legal meaning, merit,
validity, privilege, conflicts or deadlines. Sends, files, signs and
calendars nothing, and nothing has been sent, filed, signed or
calendared. Says nothing about whether the invention is new,
patentable or owned by anyone, and gives no view on filing or its
timing. No search was run.
Company A Confidential
Invention, as the records name it: "Belt drift detection from motor
current"
Prepared by: Rosalind Teague, VP Engineering, 11 November 2026
1. WHAT WAS MADE, IN THE INVENTOR'S WORDS
What it is:
- "A small board that fits inside the motor control cabinet of our KX
conveyors and warns the operator when the belt starts running
off-centre, before the belt edge rubs the frame." (Description,
para. 1)
How it works:
- "The board samples the drive motor's current 2,000 times a second.
When the belt drifts, a small ripple appears in the current that
repeats once per belt revolution. For the first hour after
installation the board records the normal size of that ripple (the
learned level). After that, if the ripple stays more than the set
margin above the learned level for 3 minutes, it lights the amber lamp
and sends a fault code to the line controller." (Description, para. 2)
The problem it addresses, as the inventor puts it:
- "Customers usually find out about drift when the belt edge is already
frayed. The optical edge sensors we sell as an option get coated in
dust in flour and cement plants and stop reading." (Description,
para. 3)
What the inventor says is different:
- "Nothing has to be mounted near the belt; everything happens in the
cabinet. As far as I know nobody detects belt drift from the motor
current. There was a university paper years ago about finding bearing
faults from motor current, not belts. I can't remember who wrote it."
(Description, para. 4)
The inventor's own statement. Not checked, and not a finding that
anything is new.
Referred to but not given:
- "the set margin" (Description, para. 2): its size is not given.
Asked in 7.
- "a university paper years ago" (Description, para. 4): its authors,
title and year are not given. Asked in 7.
- "a customer's Plant 3" (Description, para. 5): the customer is not
named. Asked in 7.
- "Teodor at Customer B" (Description, para. 7): a full name and role
are not given. Asked in 7.
2. WHO CONTRIBUTED WHAT, AND WHEN
From the contributor records:
- Omar Linde, Controls engineer, Company A: "Idea: detect belt drift
from once-per-revolution ripple in motor current; notebook sketch".
2026-02-12. Record: Notebook OL-7, p. 41.
The record says: "12 Feb 2026. Plant 3 drift again. Idea: watch motor
current for a once-per-rev ripple? Compare with a baseline per belt."
(Notebook OL-7, p. 41)
- Kit Arrowsmith, Firmware developer (contract), Contractor C: "First
filter code for ripple detection". 2026-04-14. Record: Commit
3f9a2c1, firmware repository.
The record says: "Add band-pass filter for once-per-rev ripple"
(Commit 3f9a2c1, message)
- Mei Sato, Hardware engineer, Company A: "Prototype board, revision
A". 2026-05-06. Record: Board drawing BS-A rev A.
The record says: "Drift board, rev A. Drawn M. Sato. 6 May 2026."
(Board drawing BS-A rev A, title block)
- Rosalind Teague, VP Engineering, Company A: "Design review". Date not
recorded. Record: Not recorded.
Named elsewhere, not in the contributor records:
- Teodor, Customer B: "Teodor at Customer B
suggested learning the normal ripple level after installation instead
of using a fixed threshold. We did that." (Description, para. 7)
Who counts as an inventor, and who owns anything, is for counsel.
3. DATED RECORD
- 12 February 2026 · Idea written in notebook, Omar Linde (Contributor
records, row 1; Notebook OL-7, p. 41; Description, para. 5)
- 14 April 2026 · First filter code for ripple detection, Kit
Arrowsmith (Contributor records, row 2; Commit 3f9a2c1; Description,
para. 5, "in April")
- 6 May 2026 · Board drawing BS-A rev A drawn: "Drift board, rev A.
Drawn M. Sato. 6 May 2026." (Board drawing BS-A rev A, title block);
"Prototype board, revision A", 2026-05-06 (Contributor records, row 3)
- 28 May 2026 · "mutual NDA, 28 May 2026", as the disclosure log
records it (Disclosure log, row 1, confidentiality field)
- 9 June 2026 to 23 June 2026 · Field trial, Customer B plant, line 2
(Disclosure log, row 1; Trial report TR-14; Description, para. 6, "in
June") Records differ, below.
- 17 September 2026 · Talk, Event D meetup (Disclosure log, row 2;
Description, para. 6, "in September")
- 3 December 2026 · Demo on stand, Event G trade show, planned
(Disclosure log, row 3; Stand plan SP-2)
Records differ:
- Field trial, Customer B plant, line 2: 9 June 2026 to 23 June 2026
(Disclosure log, row 1); 10 June 2026 to 23 June 2026 (Trial report
TR-14).
Undated or partly dated:
- "I had the idea after a service call at a customer's Plant 3"
(Description, para. 5). No date given.
- "Mei Sato built the first board in May" (Description, para. 5). Date
as given: May.
- "we ran it on the test rig from 20 May" (Description, para. 5). Date
as given: 20 May.
- Design review, Rosalind Teague (Contributor records, row 4). No date
given.
- Teodor's suggestion (Description, para. 7). No date given.
- The quote for Customer F (Description, para. 6). No date given.
4. OUTSIDE DISCLOSURES
From the disclosure log:
A. 2026-06-09 to 2026-06-23 · Field trial, Customer B plant, line 2
Audience: Customer B maintenance team
What was shown or said: Prototype board fitted; live readings shared
daily
Confidentiality agreement, as recorded: Yes: mutual NDA, 28 May 2026
Record: Trial report TR-14. Supplied
Records differ: see 3.
B. 2026-09-17 · Talk, Event D meetup
Audience: About 60 attendees; open registration
What was shown or said: 2-minute video of the amber lamp lighting on
the test rig; one slide on current ripple
Confidentiality agreement, as recorded: No
Record: Slides and video, not attached. Not supplied
Mentioned elsewhere, not in the log:
C. No date given · "Sales have put it in the quote for Customer F."
(Description, para. 6)
Planned, as recorded:
D. 2026-12-03 · Demo on stand, Event G trade show
Audience: Trade show visitors
What was shown or said: Planned: working conveyor with the board
fitted
Confidentiality agreement, as recorded: Not recorded
Record: Stand plan SP-2. Supplied
The brief does not say whether any of these made the invention public,
whether any agreement covered it, or what any of them means.
5. NAMED IN THE RECORDS
- "our KX conveyors" (Description, para. 1). To be verified by the
lawyer.
- "The optical edge sensors we sell as an option" (Description,
para. 3). To be verified by the lawyer.
- "a university paper years ago about finding bearing faults from motor
current, not belts" (Description, para. 4). To be verified by the
lawyer.
6. COUNSEL'S QUESTIONS
No question list from counsel was supplied.
7. OPEN FACTS
1. What is the size of "the set margin" in paragraph 2? Who can answer:
Omar Linde. Fills: 1, Referred to but not given.
2. Teodor's full name, his role at Customer B, when he made the
suggestion, and any message or note that records it. Who can answer:
Omar Linde. Fills: 1, Referred to but not given; 2, Named elsewhere;
3, Undated or partly dated.
3. The date of Rosalind Teague's design review, what it covered, and
where it is recorded. Who can answer: Rosalind Teague. Fills: 2, From
the contributor records; 3, Undated or partly dated.
4. Did the Customer B trial start on 9 June 2026 or 10 June 2026? Who
can answer: Omar Linde, or whoever keeps the disclosure log. Fills:
3, Records differ; 4, A.
5. The Customer F quote: its date, who received it, and what it says
about the board. Who can answer: Sales (Description, para. 6). Fills:
4, C; 3, Undated or partly dated.
6. The year of the test rig runs "from 20 May", and where their results
are recorded. Who can answer: Omar Linde. Fills: 3, Undated or partly
dated.
7. Which customer's Plant 3 the service call was at, its date, and any
record of it. Who can answer: Omar Linde. Fills: 1, Referred to but
not given; 3, Undated or partly dated.
8. Any author, title or year Omar Linde recalls for the university
paper. Who can answer: Omar Linde. Fills: 1, Referred to but not
given; 5.
9. On what date, including the year, was the first board built ("Mei
Sato built the first board in May"), and where is that recorded?
Who can answer: Mei Sato. Fills: 3, Undated or partly dated.
COUNSEL TO CONFIRM
[ ] Section 1 describes the invention well enough to start from. ____
[ ] Contributors in 2, including anyone named only elsewhere. ____
[ ] A. Field trial, Customer B, 2026-06-09 to 2026-06-23. ____
[ ] B. Talk, Event D meetup, 2026-09-17. ____
[ ] C. Quote for Customer F, no date given. ____
[ ] D. Demo on stand, Event G trade show, 2026-12-03, planned. ____
[ ] Field trial, Customer B: 9 June 2026 to 23 June 2026
(Disclosure log, row 1) or 10 June 2026 to 23 June 2026
(Trial report TR-14). ____
[ ] Whether to search, and how: for counsel to decide. ____
[ ] Whether to file, where and when: for counsel to decide. ____
[ ] Who is named as an inventor, and who owns it: for counsel. ____
[ ] What any occasion or agreement in 4 means: for counsel to
decide. ____
[ ] Which open facts in 7 to answer before the first meeting. ____
CHECK
- Records read: Description (2 November 2026); Contributor records
(undated); Disclosure log (undated); Notebook OL-7, p. 41 (12 February
2026); Commit 3f9a2c1 (14 April 2026); Board drawing BS-A rev A (6 May
2026); Trial report TR-14 (undated); Stand plan SP-2 (undated).
- Rows read: contributor records 4 of 4; disclosure log 3 of 3.
- Tallies: contributors 4 recorded, 1 named elsewhere; outside
disclosures 2 logged, 1 mentioned elsewhere, 1 planned; open facts 9;
records missing 8.
- Description: in the inventor's words.
- No date was counted, and no period was worked out from any date.
- Nothing outside the records supplied was searched or consulted.
- This brief says nothing about whether the invention is new,
patentable or owned by anyone, and gives no view on filing or its
timing.
Confirmed by (patent counsel): ____________ Date: ________
Until counsel signs, this is a draft for counsel.
MISSING RECORDS · FOR ROSALIND TEAGUE TO COLLECT
1. "mutual NDA, 28 May 2026" (Disclosure log, row 1, confidentiality
field): named in the log; not supplied. Supports: 4, A.
Likely held by: Not known.
2. Event D slides and video as shown on 2026-09-17: the log says "not
attached". Supports: 4, B.
Likely held by: Omar Linde, who gave the talk (Description, para. 6).
3. The quote for Customer F: named in the description, para. 6; not in
the log and not supplied. Supports: 4, C.
Likely held by: Sales (Description, para. 6).
4. A record of Rosalind Teague's design review: contributor records,
row 4, has no date and no record. Supports: 2, From the contributor
records.
Likely held by: Rosalind Teague.
5. A record of Teodor's suggestion: named in the description, para. 7;
none supplied. Supports: 2, Named elsewhere.
Likely held by: Not known.
6. Test rig records from 20 May: named in the description, para. 5;
none supplied. Supports: 3, Undated or partly dated.
Likely held by: Not known.
7. A record of the service call at a customer's Plant 3: named in the
description, para. 5; none supplied. Supports: 3, Undated or partly
dated.
Likely held by: Not known.
8. A record of the first board build "in May": named in the
description, para. 5; none supplied. Supports: 3, Undated or partly
dated.
Likely held by: Not known.
Rosalind Teague collects these and decides whom to ask. Nothing is
requested from anyone outside the company by this workflow.
The brief copies each of the four rows of the contributor records and quotes the record behind each row that has one. It then lists, under "Named elsewhere", the one person the description names who is not in those records, with the description's own words and paragraph. It weighs none of these against another, and leaves every question about what any of them means to counsel.
Rosalind Teague checks the brief against the records, collects what she can from the list, and asks Omar and the sales team the open facts. Then she sends the brief to Joanna Pell, who confirms each line, decides on search, filing, inventorship and ownership, and answers Rosalind's question about filing. The brief never goes back to the business as an answer.
Where it fits
- Legal and contracts, where patent counsel's time is billed by the hour and the first meeting is often spent gathering facts.
- Research and development, where ideas move from a notebook to a prototype to a customer trial faster than anyone writes down who did what.
- Software engineering, where the history lives in commits and the outside showings are talks, posts and release notes.
- Software and technology, where contractors and open conversations with customers are part of how products get built.
- Hardware and physical technology, where prototypes go out on field trials and trade show stands.
- Manufacturing, where an improvement to a production line can come from an engineer, a supplier or a customer's maintenance team.
- Startups and new ventures, with no lawyer on staff and a pitch, a demo and a first customer all happening at once.
- New business lines, when an established company builds something outside its usual products and nobody has kept invention records before.
Before an agreement with a contractor or partner who might contribute to the work is signed, IP terms question table puts its ownership and confidentiality clauses in front of counsel. When a customer sends its own agreement for a trial, contract intake brief prepares it for review.
What has to change for your company
Your records are the heart of it. Decide where contributor records and the disclosure log live, who keeps them, and what counts as a record: notebook pages, commits, drawings, trial reports, slides, quotes. Agree the column headings once, so every brief reads them the same way. If you have never kept a disclosure log, the first brief will show how much is missing; that list is the start of one.
Name the patent counsel who receives each brief, and who covers when they are away. If counsel uses a disclosure form or a question list, use it as an input every time. Decide what confidentiality label your company puts on briefs; whether any further marking is needed is counsel's call, so a label that is itself a privilege marking is left off and the brief says so.
We sit with the people who build your products and the counsel who protects them, write down how inventions are really recorded, and set it up in the AI product your company has approved: ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini. Confirm first that your company's policy allows unreleased technical material to be used in it.
What has been checked
Fully Powered AI wrote this workflow template, drawing one idea from a published source credited with it. It was editorially reviewed on 11 November 2026. It was tried on its invented example in Claude on 11 November 2026, after a revision that followed an independent review. A separate review of the legal boundary then found that the example's note pointed to a date beside a question about filing and gave one record's date to an event another record described, and that the template did not say what happens to a supplied label that is a privilege marking. The template and the example were corrected, the rules for replies to questions it declines were tightened, and five follow-up questions designed to draw out advice were put again by the session that made the changes. The record of the run and of the follow-ups is published with the template. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer. It has not yet been tested in a client environment. It has not yet been tested as a packaged version in ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini.
Testing in your company means running it on two or three past inventions whose history your engineers know well, and comparing: every contributor in the records listed, every person mentioned elsewhere caught, every outside showing in the log copied exactly, every showing mentioned but not logged found, every disagreement between dates shown, and no word on whether anything is new, patentable or owned. Include a description that names a customer's suggestion, a log row with no record, a planned trade show, and a request asking whether to file first. Pilot acceptance-test preparation builds that set, and what we test before we call an AI workflow ready describes the record we keep.
Who decides
Your people keep
- Whether to search
- Whether and where to file
- Who is named as an inventor
- Who owns what
It does not
- Gives no legal advice
- Decides nothing about legal meaning, merit, validity, privilege, conflicts or deadlines
- Sends, files, signs and calendars nothing
- Never says an invention is new, patentable or owned by anyone
- Gives no view on filing or its timing
- Runs no search
Questions people ask
Who is it for?
The founder, engineering lead or R&D manager starts it before the first meeting with patent counsel. The brief is addressed to counsel and goes to counsel.
What do I need to supply?
The inventor's description in the inventor's own words, the contributor records, the disclosure log, the records the others point to as far as you have them, and the named patent counsel.
What does it not do?
It gives no legal advice. It never says an invention is new, patentable or owned by anyone, and patent counsel decides everything that follows; a lawyer decides and signs.
What do I get?
One brief, marked as a draft for patent counsel, in seven parts, then the lines counsel confirms and a check block, and a list of missing records to collect.
What has been checked?
It was editorially reviewed on 11 November 2026 and tried on its invented example in Claude. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer and has not yet been tested in a client environment.
The full workflow template
Everything above is the outline. The complete workflow template is the working version: the roles, the inputs, the procedure, the exceptions and stop conditions, the output format, the reviewer checklist, the acceptance tests, the instructions for an AI assistant and what to customize for your company. It comes with a download and the link to its folder in Fully Powered’s public repository.
Free with an account. Sign in by email: no password and no card.
Next step
Put this workflow template to work for your team: on your plan, or built with you in a sprint.
Build this in a sprint
In a sprint, Fully Powered adapts this workflow template to your rules, proves it on your own work and puts it in the hands of the roles that own it.
Two ways to begin: