Thanks, ^redacted‌. ^redacted‌, I am looking at this from the perspective of someone who has represented many startups in their acquisition and investment transactions. In my experience, anything which progresses the creation of intellectual property is a positive thing, and can add additional value to a transaction. We have had situations, for example, where transactions have come up prior to the application for patent of an invention. But, where the target had already taken steps to search for prior art, and otherwise had a plan to prosecute the patentable technology, the target companies were seen as more serious, and it definitely helped with the deal. The same thing is true about companies who have carefully worked out how to protect their trade secrets, or which have begun getting NDA, Work for Hire, Invention Assignment and other agreements protective of their IP from employees, consultants and others. If I can be of any help, or you would like to discuss anything in greater detail, DM me here.

Ken, this is extremely helpful context — thank you for taking the time to share it. What resonates most is your point that progress toward defensibility itself carries signal and transaction value, even ahead of formal patent filings. That’s very much how I’m thinking about this: not as a finished IP asset, but as a deliberately structured foundation with clear intent around protection, exclusion, and future prosecution paths. I appreciate the practical examples you gave around prior art searches, trade secret strategy, and early contractual hygiene — those are exactly the levers I’m evaluating right now. I may take you up on the offer to discuss further once I’ve pressure-tested a few structuring options. Thanks again for weighing in.