Here are cases where we combined multiple services for an integrated solution — drawn from practice built up since our founding in 1992.
Each case follows the flow: (1) business challenge → (2) protection choice and strategy → (3) services used → (4) business results. Click a heading to open the details.
(1) Challenge: The client had developed a simulation system with complex algorithms and was torn between the risk of leaking know-how through patent filing and the risk of a competitor filing first if kept secret.
(2) Protection and strategy: We analyzed and mapped the intricate technology into scenarios, successfully drafting claims that could confirm the elements were met, and chose to file a patent. Know-how was protected as trade secrets, and third-party device data used by the system as “limited provision data.”
(3) Services used: A (Core Services) + B (Consulting & Related Services)
(4) Results: We combined a legal shield, black-boxing, and a system that accumulates limited provision data — achieving a market advantage rivals cannot follow and long-term market dominance.
(1) Challenge: In joint development with another company, the boundary between the client's existing proprietary technology (background IP) and new deliverables became unclear, creating a risk of ownership disputes (contamination).
(2) Protection and strategy: Before development began, we listed the client's technology by process and secured evidence using timestamps and notaries. We also weighed each process's strengths and weaknesses to inform contract negotiations.
(3) Services used: B (Consulting & Related Services)
(4) Results: We prevented leakage of improved technology and ownership disputes, letting the client keep its technical edge while negotiating contract terms with the counterparty.
(1) Challenge: Because development ran ahead and IP measures lagged, technical leaks during negotiations were a problem. The cost of filing before negotiations — which did not always lead to deals — was also an issue.
(2) Protection and strategy: We joined from the early planning and research stage, applied legal measures such as timestamps to negotiation materials, and blocked unauthorized copying by the other side.
(3) Services used: B (Consulting & Related Services) + D (Other Services)
(4) Results: Suspicion in negotiations eased, communication improved, and development sped up. IP measures also boosted trust, raising the deal-closing rate. Rather than being treated as a mere subcontractor, the client moved to joint filings and cut wasteful filing costs.
(1) Challenge: As a new product became a hit, there was concern that cheap products cleverly imitating not only its function but its design and brand image would appear on the market.
(2) Protection and strategy: We protected function (patent), appearance (design), and name (trademark) together, building a three-dimensional “triple net” that can trigger immediate legal action against imitation from any angle.
(3) Services used: A (Core Services)
(4) Results: In niche industries, product standing is established when user recognition ties to the brand name, so multilayered blocking of look-alikes that lack the technical effect is most effective.
(1) Challenge: The company was known to hold much long-accumulated know-how (tacit knowledge), but this was not fairly reflected in its financial statements and did not carry weight in financing or M&A negotiations.
(2) Protection and strategy: We visualized the company's hidden strengths as an “intellectual asset valuation report.” More than paperwork, we mapped the relationship of valuable know-how to other industrial property rights as objective evidence.
(3) Services used: B (Consulting & Related Services)
(4) Results: Visualizing how know-how relates to other IP deepened understanding of the competitive edge it provides and improved credibility with financial institutions. Showing how held IP relates to earning power is also crucial for corporate-value collateral.
(1) Challenge: In overseas expansion, trademark public-order and distinctiveness standards and prior registrations differ by country. For patents, the allowable claim wording also varies by country.
(2) Protection and strategy: For trademarks, registering a similar range — not necessarily the exact form — is enough if it excludes competitors. For patents, the goal is claims that block entry to the point where competitors cannot work the product. We propose the best approach while carefully hearing each country's examination results and the client's business situation.
(3) Services used: C (Overseas Services)
(4) Results: We built a practical “shield of rights” in global markets, prevented international counterfeiting trouble, maintained overseas brand trust, and contributed to internationalizing the technology.
(1) Challenge: Departments worked separately, with deep gaps between the IP department, development floor, and sales. IP had become clerical work for one department, and the divisions involved in product development did not understand their role in creating IP.
(2) Protection and strategy: Rather than lectures, we ran a workshop-style program where members from different departments tackled the same business challenge together. Through solving one problem together, they came to understand each other's work and grasp concretely what information each could provide and how each could contribute to creating and protecting IP.
(3) Services used: B (Consulting & Related Services — corporate training and organizational support)
(4) Results: Barriers between departments fall, and a company-wide culture of growing IP takes hold. As departments recognize each other's contributions, information flows more freely, enabling more effective IP strategies that reflect real on-site strengths from many angles.