> For instance, three years ago, Franklin submitted an application for a startup that needed to secure crucial patents before it filed for public offering. It was being sued by a large company in the same space, and so it paid the Patent Office an extra fee to fast-track the application.
Reading between the lines a little, it looks like a small company with tech that challenged a big company was being hassled by the big company and needed the patents to put them on a favorable-enough legal footing to not interfere with their IPO.
Sure, but I don't get how this helps. Is it just the bigger company will hold off because you now have "ammunition" to also sue them for infringement in a kind of MAD standoff?
The article (and a sibling comment) also mentions investor reasons ("If it’s a startup trying to get traction against an established player, they may not get funding because they don’t get the patent in place,") but I don't understand why that's the case unless it goes back to some kind of signaling that you won't be an easy legal target. I'd think all a patent would show is that you have an idea, which investors would already know and is true regardless of whether the patent is pending or approved.
> For instance, three years ago, Franklin submitted an application for a startup that needed to secure crucial patents before it filed for public offering. It was being sued by a large company in the same space, and so it paid the Patent Office an extra fee to fast-track the application.
Reading between the lines a little, it looks like a small company with tech that challenged a big company was being hassled by the big company and needed the patents to put them on a favorable-enough legal footing to not interfere with their IPO.