IP Audit SOP
DHL
PASN:(DEUTSCHE POST AG OR DHL GROUP OR DEUTSCHE POST RUNDFUNK OR DEUTSCHE POST RFZ OR DEUTSCHE POST INST OR DHL SUPPLY CHAIN RN USA LLC OR DHLOGISTICS CO LTD OR DHL SUPPLY CHAIN LTD OR DEUTSCHE POST AGOF BONN OR DHL LOJISTIK HIZMETLERI AS OR DEUTSCHE POST INSTITUTE FUER POST UND FERNMELDEWESEN OR DEUTSCHE POST INSTITUTE FUER POST UND FERNMELDEWESEN AG OR DEUTSCHE POST UND EISENBAHN VERKEHRSWESEN AG OR DHL EXPRESS USA INC OR DHL WORLDWIDE EXPRESS TASIMACILIK VE TICARET AS OR DHL LOGISTICS BEIJING CO LTD)
Client links
Competitors (3)
- UPS
PASN:("United Parcel Service, Inc.") - FedEx
PASN:("FedEx Corporation") - Kuehne+Nagel
PASN:("Kuehne + Nagel International AG")
Done
audit b6249376
created 21 Jul 2026, 13:39
DHL / IP AUDIT SOP / LIVE DATA MAP
Working sheet
Portfolio records 10Families 10Alive 4USPTO covered 1
76 of 76 modules
Scores apply the workbook logic with reviewer remarks as overrides. An asterisk marks a transparent proxy or pending reviewer adjustment; missing evidence is never scored as zero, and “—” means the workbook defines no rubric. Click a row to see the basis.
| Section | Module | Key number | Score | Headline | What it shows | State | Scope | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What's Working7 live · 8 modules | ||||||||
| What's Working | Portfolio scale | 10 records · 10 families | 5/10 | 10 portfolio families are loaded; the same-scope alive-publication proxy ranks DHL #2 of 3. | Total patent families worldwide, incl. subsidiary & acquired-entity filings | LIVE | Portfolio DB | |
| What's Working | In-force core | 591 active-granted · 264 active-applied | 1.4/10 | 1 families retain an active grant; 3 are pending-only and 6 have no active grant. | PatSeer Quick Stats active-granted and active-applied steering publications | LIVE | PatSeer Quick Stats | |
| What's Working | Grant rate | 70.0% · 7 grants / 10 applications | 8/10 | 7/7 decided applications produced a grant (100.0%); 3 pending applications are excluded. | Worldwide historical grants divided by all grant-capable applications ever filed | LIVE | Portfolio DB | |
| What's Working | Grant speed (rubric) | 43.1 mo median | 4/10 | 43.1 months average filing-to-grant across 1 USPTO grants; the median is 43.1 months. | Average filing-to-grant in months, scored: <12mo=10, 12-15=9, 15-24=8, 24-30=7, 30-35=6, 35-40=5, >40=4. Photon benchmark 11mo = 10 | LIVE | USPTO covered | |
| What's Working | Technology franchises | 0.0% mechanical | 7/10 | 3 active families sit in the largest technology domain (ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING; 75.0% of active families). | Depth per product line / CPC cluster - real moats vs scattered filings | LIVE | Portfolio DB | |
| What's Working | Inventor-geography alignment | 8 US inventor mentions | Not a score | 18 inventor identities are visible; inventor location is an R&D and first-filing map, not a filing-quality score. | Where inventors sit vs where patents are filed - whether filings follow the R&D map | LIVE | Portfolio DB | |
| What's Working | Geographic alignment | 5 filing jurisdictions | Needs input | 5 filing jurisdictions are loaded; revenue-weighted and manufacturing-weighted coverage is still unknown. | Filed where revenue/factories actually are | NEEDS INPUT | Portfolio DB + approved input | |
| What's Working | Rank vs rivals | #2 of 3 · 3,155 publications | 5/10 | DHL ranks #2 of 3 by same-scope alive publications (855); claim-quality review remains separate. | More patents than any direct competitor | LIVE | PatSeer Quick Stats | |
| What's Not Working17 live · 25 modules | ||||||||
| What's Not WorkingFOCUS | Chain of title | 1 families flagged · 1 security-release gaps | 0/10 | 1 of 1 families are document-review candidates; none is treated as a confirmed title defect yet. | USPTO assignment, inventor-conveyance, and security-interest records flagged for document review | LIVE | Portfolio DB + USPTO covered | |
| What's Not Working | Cost of Delayed filings/missing Deadline | 1 granted extensions · 33 applicant-delay days | 3/10 | 1 of 1 applications had at least one granted extension (100.0%); 0 applications show a repeat-event pattern. | USPTO extension frequency and applicant-delay/PTA evidence; no dollar amount yet | LIVE | USPTO covered | |
| What's Not Working | IP Drain | Needs input | Needs input | No departure is inferred from 18 inventor identities; current-employer and same-technology filing evidence is absent. | Inventors who have joined a competitor or started a competing business or a company serving the same product to the same market | NEEDS INPUT | Portfolio DB + approved input | |
| What's Not Working | High OA Cost | 2 OA events · max 2 | 7/10 | 2 OAs across 1 prosecuted applications feed the combined 2.0-OA-per-grant efficiency result. | It shows the quality of prosecution being done by a lawyer | LIVE | USPTO covered | |
| What's Not Working | Dead by default | 0 nonpayment records | 10/10 | 0 nonpayment records require client review to separate deliberate pruning from patents that lapsed without a decision. | Patents lost to unpaid fees - lapses nobody decided | LIVE | Portfolio DB | |
| What's Not Working | Dead-application waste | 0 abandoned apps | 9/10 | 0/1 disposed USPTO applications were abandoned (0.0%); no flat $25–30K multiplier is used. | Applications that died pre-grant x $25-30K each = money spent with nothing to show | LIVE | USPTO covered | |
| What's Not Working | Fines & extension fees | 1 granted extensions · 33 applicant-delay days | 0/10 | 1 extension events affect 1 applications; exact month tiers, entity tiers and paid amounts are unavailable. | USPTO extension frequency and applicant-delay/PTA evidence; no dollar amount yet | LIVE | USPTO covered | |
| What's Not Working | Prosecution cost per patent | 2 OAs · 1 RCEs | 7/10 | 2.0 OAs per granted application; 100.0% of grants required an RCE. | Office actions per patent, RCE count; every OA round = another invoice at hourly firms | LIVE | USPTO covered | |
| What's Not Working | Appeals red flag | 0 apps · 0 appeal briefs | 10/10 | 0 appealed applications currently resolve to 0 grants, 0 abandonments and 0 pending/other outcomes. | Cases that went to appeal (~3x cost of normal prosecution) | LIVE | USPTO covered | |
| What's Not Working | Examiner interviews | 1 apps · 8 events | 10/10 | 1/1 substantively prosecuted applications have an interview event (100.0%). | How many interviews current counsel conducted (low = passive prosecution) | LIVE | USPTO covered | |
| What's Not Working | Grant delay vs benchmark | 43.1 mo client median | 4/10 | 43.1 months average to grant is already scored once under Grant speed; no comparable peer cohort is loaded. | Client average vs Photon 11-month benchmark vs competitors' grant timelines | NEEDS INPUT | USPTO covered + approved input | |
| What's Not Working | Pipeline decay | 1 2024 filings · 0 near-term expiries | 10/10 | 1 families filed in 2024 versus 0.0 family expiries per year over the next five years (10.0×; +0.0% versus 2022). | Filings per year trend + expiry cliff - moat draining faster than refilling | LIVE | Portfolio DB | |
| What's Not Working | White space | Input required | Needs roadmap | No revenue-product-line coverage share is available, and the fastest-growing roadmap line has not been confirmed. | Product/revenue areas with zero or thin filings (mapped vs where the business is going) | NEEDS INPUT | Portfolio DB + approved input | |
| What's Not Working | Patent-to-product gaps | Input required | Needs input | A client-confirmed feature list and claims mapping—including pending applications—are required before calling any shipped feature exposed. | Shipped features with no patent behind them - invention exposed to competitors | NEEDS INPUT | Portfolio DB + approved input | |
| What's Not Working | Geographic coverage gaps | Input required | Needs input | 5 client jurisdictions are known; rival markets have not been filtered through client sales and manufacturing relevance. | Where competitors file vs where client files; rate the footprint | NEEDS INPUT | Portfolio DB + approved input | |
| What's Not Working | Claim vulnerability | 0 §101 apps · 0 §112 apps | 10/10 | 0/1 USPTO applications have a §101 or §112 rejection history (0.0%); assessment dated 2026-07-19. | Abstract software/AI claims exposed to S.101 challenge | LIVE | USPTO covered | |
| What's Not Working | M&A readiness score | Input required | Rubric incomplete | The mock-diligence score is withheld until the seven checks, point weights and feeder modules are written and approved. | Mock buy-side diligence: 7 checks scored /100, path to ~90 | NEEDS INPUT | Portfolio DB + approved input | |
| What's Not WorkingFOCUS | Term surrendered (PTA ledger) | 33 applicant-delay days · 33 observed PTA offset | 7/10 | 33 applicant-delay days equal 0.1 aggregate years across 1 PTA ledgers (33.0 days/ledger; worst 33). | USPTO applicant-delay ledger and observed reduction in otherwise available patent-term adjustment | LIVE | USPTO covered | |
| What's Not Working | Speed paradox (Track One vs PTA) | 0 verified purchases · 0 T1OFF candidates · 0 abandoned | Not applicable | 0 confirmed Track One purchases were found; 0 T1OFF-only records are excluded from purchase and cost claims. | Track One-status candidates, payment verification, applicant-delay evidence, and prosecution outcome | NEEDS INPUT | USPTO covered + fee-payment records | |
| What's Not WorkingFOCUS | Art-unit routing split | 1 apps in 36xx | Not applicable | The portfolio is automotive/mechanical; its 36xx applications are not a valid business-method cohort for the workbook's software/fintech routing rubric. | Outcomes by art unit family (36xx business-method vs technical units): abandonments, appeal losses, avg OAs per case in each lane. | LIVE | USPTO covered | |
| What's Not Working | Claim-scope erosion | Input required | Attorney review | Filed-versus-allowed Claim 1 pairs and continuation-open results have not yet been computed for approved flagship families. | Claim 1 word count as-filed vs as-granted on flagships (+X%), plus % of grants scope-frozen (no continuation open). | NEEDS INPUT | Portfolio DB + approved input | |
| What's Not Working | Interview gap on troubled cases | 0 of 1 without interview | 10/10 | 0/1 troubled applications had no interview; the troubled-case interview rate is 100.0%. | Of cases currently in trouble, how many never had an examiner interview (vs healthy overall rate). | LIVE | USPTO covered | |
| What's Not Working | Citation paradox (war case) | 0 max family citations | 8/10 | The most-cited currently active-granted family has 0 family citations; scope health remains unreviewed. | The most-forward-cited family vs its prosecution state (e.g. 144 citations, 13 OAs, lost appeal, still unprotected). | LIVE | Portfolio DB + USPTO covered | |
| What's Not Working | High RCE COST | 1 RCEs · 1 apps | 7/10 | 1 RCEs are recorded and 100.0% of granted applications required an RCE; this carries the shared Prosecution efficiency score. | It shows the efficiency of the prosecution | LIVE | USPTO covered | |
| What's Not Working | Filing-route design | 0 foreign-priority apps | 3/10 | 0/1 USPTO applications contain foreign-priority data (0.0%), used as the front-loading proxy. | Route map: home-provisional + PCT front-load months before US examination starts, vs direct-US-first. Pair with Track One spend. | LIVE | USPTO covered | |
| CLUB HEADLINES0 live · 3 modules | ||||||||
| CLUB HEADLINESFOCUS | Cost of the status quo | 0 dead · 1 RCE · 1 extensions | — | 0 dead · 1 RCE · 1 extensions. Certified volumes are live; a dollar headline waits for a deduplicated, event-dated cost ledger. | One stacked money number: what the current operating model has burned + leaks per year. GC's sentence: "We're leaking ~$X/yr and I can show you where." | DERIVED | Approved assumptions + Portfolio DB | |
| CLUB HEADLINESFOCUS | Do you own what you think you own? | 1 assignment histories | — | 1 assignment histories. Ownership integrity cannot be stated until candidate records are document-reviewed against the intended owner. | One integrity count: records whose ownership or status doesn't match reality. GC's sentence: "N of our assets we can't currently prove." | DERIVED | Approved assumptions + Portfolio DB | |
| CLUB HEADLINES | The moat is draining | 0 expiring in five years | — | 1 filings entered in 2024 while 0 records approach expiry within five years; product importance is not yet weighted. | One direction-of-travel visual: expiries out vs filings in, rivals' trend lines rising on the same chart. GC's sentence: "We shrink every year while competitors accelerate." | DERIVED | Approved assumptions + Portfolio DB | |
| Your Savings0 live · 11 modules | ||||||||
| Your Savings | Country pruning | 5 jurisdictions to review | — | 5 jurisdictions are visible; no country is called non-core until the client confirms its revenue and manufacturing map. | Drop non-core jurisdictions; lifetime renewal $ freed (interactive include/exclude table) | DERIVED | Approved assumptions + Portfolio DB | |
| Your Savings | Family pruning (pruning logic) | Awaiting approved assumptions | — | No family is a savings candidate until the pruning model and business-importance review are completed. | Keep/kill score per family via Prayank's pruning model; $ saved | DERIVED | Approved assumptions + Portfolio DB | |
| Your Savings | Flat fee vs hourly calculator | Awaiting approved assumptions | — | Savings are withheld: incumbent invoices and the client-specific Photon rate card are not present in the workbook. | Per-filing: Photon flat vs incumbent firm rate x filings/year (interactive sliders) | DERIVED | Approved assumptions + Portfolio DB | |
| Your Savings | Prosecution savings | 2 OA · 1 RCE events | — | 2 observed OA rounds define the workload; any savings figure must use non-duplicative invoices or clearly labelled benchmark rates. | OA count x per-response billing at incumbent vs unlimited-included at Photon | DERIVED | Approved assumptions + Portfolio DB | |
| Your Savings | Fines eliminated | 1 extension events | — | 1 extension events are candidates for review; exact avoidable fees require extension month, entity tier and transaction-date pricing. | Extension/penalty spend that goes to zero with deadline discipline | DERIVED | Approved assumptions + Portfolio DB | |
| Your Savings | Dead-app risk transfer | 0 abandoned apps | — | 0 abandoned applications are visible; contractual eligibility and case-level cost evidence are required before valuing risk transfer. | Money-back-if-rejected removes the $25-30K-per-dead-application risk | DERIVED | Approved assumptions + Portfolio DB | |
| Your Savings | Annuity management | Awaiting approved assumptions | — | Renewal-administration savings are withheld until patent-country units, incumbent charges and a verified current quote are loaded. | $230/patent/country vs current D&M/CPA renewal service rates | DERIVED | Approved assumptions + Portfolio DB | |
| Your Savings | Consolidation | Awaiting approved assumptions | — | A consolidation headline requires the current firm map, foreign-associate structure and documented coordination or markup costs. | One firm + included foreign counsel vs US firm + marked-up foreign associates | DERIVED | Approved assumptions + Portfolio DB | |
| Your Savings | Budget certainty | Awaiting approved assumptions | — | Budget certainty is a service proposition, not a measured saving until historical invoices and the proposed fixed budget are compared. | Hourly billing = unpredictable yearly budget; flat = certainty and clarity | DERIVED | Approved assumptions + Portfolio DB | |
| Your SavingsFOCUS | Sunk-cost ledger (defensible) | 0 dead · 2 OA · 1 RCE | — | 0 dead matters, 2 OA rounds and 1 RCEs are available for a case-level estimated floor—not a flat per-case multiplier. | One floor number: (dead-app drafting + filing fees + OA responses + RCE fees + lost appeals) at certified counts x citable rates. Five stated conservatisms. | DERIVED | Approved assumptions + Portfolio DB | |
| Your Savings | Paid-to-be-late (extensions) | 1 events · 33 delay days | — | 1 extension events and 33 applicant-delay days are separate evidence lines; cash and patent term are not double-counted. | Extension-of-time count x fee tier = cash floor, PLUS the same days counted as PTA loss (double loss: fee + term). | DERIVED | Approved assumptions + Portfolio DB | |
| Competitor Watch4 live · 11 modules | ||||||||
| Competitor Watch | Portfolio size ranking | #2 of 3 · 3,155 publications | — | The supplied publication proxy ranks DHL #2 of 3; active-family counts are required for the workbook-approved rank. | Patent counts per rival, granted/pending/inactive split (stacked bars) | LIVE | PatSeer Quick Stats | |
| Competitor Watch | Filing trends | 63 DHL publications in application year 2024 | — | 1 DHL publications have application year 2024; incomplete 2025–2026 cohorts are excluded from the trend. | Applications per year per rival over 10 years - who is accelerating | LIVE | PatSeer Quick Stats | |
| Competitor Watch | Grant rate comparison | 77.62% DHL | — | 100.0% of portfolio-wide decided applications produced a grant; peer comparisons must use the same denominator. | % granted per rival - quality vs volume story | LIVE | PatSeer Quick Stats | |
| Competitor Watch | Grant speed comparison | Input required | — | 43.1 months average to grant; peer speed is not loaded and this comparison must feed the single Grant speed score. | How fast rivals get patents vs client | NEEDS INPUT | Competitor Quick Stats + external input | |
| Competitor Watch | Country spread | Not loaded | Needs input | Competitor publication-country data was not captured for this audit (PatSeer country facet), so there is no rival footprint to compare against the client. | Rivals filing in N countries vs client in M - geographic ambition gap | NEEDS INPUT | Competitor Quick Stats + external input | |
| Competitor Watch | Technology overlap map | Input required | — | No claims-level overlap or whitespace conclusion is available; classification overlap alone is not an FTO opinion. | Category by category: rival patent numbers vs client position (no coverage / FTO check / covered) | NEEDS INPUT | Competitor Quick Stats + external input | |
| Competitor Watch | Expired rival IP | Input required | — | No rival family is labelled free-to-use until expiry and the absence of a live continuation are both confirmed. | Rival patents now public domain = free technology to build on | NEEDS INPUT | Competitor Quick Stats + external input | |
| Competitor Watch | Threat watch | 5 competitor momentum series | — | Aggregate competitor momentum is available, but no technology-specific filing surge has been verified. | Which rival surged filings in client's core recently | NEEDS INPUT | Competitor Quick Stats + external input | |
| Competitor WatchFOCUS | Employee IP leakage | Awaiting review | — | No former-inventor movement or same-technology competitor filing has been verified; no leakage accusation is made. | 5-6 ex-client inventors now filing at competitors or own startups: name, current company, patent status | NEEDS INPUT | Portfolio DB + approved input | |
| Competitor Watch | Category M&A moves | Input required | — | Category transactions and transferred patent families have not been loaded. | Who bought what in the category and what patents traded | NEEDS INPUT | Competitor Quick Stats + external input | |
| Competitor WatchFOCUS | Counsel scoreboard | 1+ current-counsel groups | — | 1+ current-counsel groups. Current correspondence counsel is a collection-time attribution, not proof of responsibility for every historical outcome. | Per law firm: applications handled, granted, abandoned, currently in trouble - by USPTO customer number (sees losses, not just wins). | LIVE | USPTO covered | |
| Trademarks0 live · 11 modules | ||||||||
| Trademarks | Register health | No source loaded | — | Trademark register data has not been loaded; registered, pending and ended counts are unavailable. | Registered / pending / ended counts + full register table | UNAVAILABLE | External input | |
| Trademarks | Dead but marketed | No source loaded | — | No ended trademark has been matched to current commercial use because register and marketing datasets are absent. | Marks expired on register yet still used on website/marketing | UNAVAILABLE | External input | |
| Trademarks | In-use but unfiled | No source loaded | — | No product name is labelled unfiled until the client-confirmed name list is checked across relevant registers. | Product/program names actively sold with zero filings anywhere | UNAVAILABLE | External input | |
| Trademarks | Flagship/acquired brands unfiled | No source loaded | — | Acquired-brand and trademark-register datasets are required before identifying an ownership gap. | Acquired brand names never registered by acquirer | UNAVAILABLE | External input | |
| Trademarks | Missing classes | No source loaded | — | Missing classes cannot be identified until current goods/services and the house-mark register are reviewed together. | House mark registered in 9/42 but core business classes (7,16,35,37,40,41) unfiled | UNAVAILABLE | External input | |
| Trademarks | Missing jurisdictions | No source loaded | — | Trademark coverage cannot be compared with revenue markets until both datasets are supplied. | Registered in X countries, selling in Y | UNAVAILABLE | External input | |
| Trademarks | House-mark defects | No source loaded | — | No house-mark defect is reported because prosecution and renewal histories are not loaded. | Lapses, address defects, unanswered office actions on the main mark | UNAVAILABLE | External input | |
| Trademarks | Third-party conflicts | No source loaded | — | Potential conflicts require current register searching and legal priority/confusion review. | Identical/confusing marks registered or applied by others, with enforcement priority per target | UNAVAILABLE | External input | |
| Trademarks | Counterfeits & unauthorized sellers | No source loaded | — | No listing is labelled counterfeit or unauthorized until marketplace evidence and client authorization are checked. | Marketplace listings and sites trading on the mark without authorization | UNAVAILABLE | External input | |
| Trademarks | Suggested filings | No source loaded | — | Filing recommendations wait for verified mark, class and country gaps. | Mark x class x country filing list with rationale | UNAVAILABLE | External input | |
| Trademarks | Enforcement plan | No source loaded | — | No enforcement target or action is recommended until conflicts, rights and prior-use risks are verified. | Per target: C&D / opposition / cancellation / takedown / monitor-only (with prior-use risk flags) | UNAVAILABLE | External input | |
| Investments0 live · 7 modules | ||||||||
| Investments | Patent flat fees | No source loaded | — | Client-specific patent flat fees are absent; the workbook cost library contains benchmarks, not the Photon quote. | New US filing / pending transfer / foreign filing / annuities - all-in prices with unlimited OAs and money-back | UNAVAILABLE | External input | |
| Investments | Trademark retainer | No source loaded | — | The verified monthly quote, quotas and exclusions are not present in the workbook. | $/month all-inclusive with monthly quotas (searches, filings, oppositions, notices) | UNAVAILABLE | External input | |
| Investments | Pulse platform | No source loaded | — | Idea capture and portfolio-dashboard functionality is described, but commercial terms must be checked against the proposal. | Free idea-capture + portfolio dashboard | UNAVAILABLE | External input | |
| Investments | Pilot design | No source loaded | — | Pilot duration, inventor count, specifications and OA commitments require a client-specific scope. | Free scoped pilot: inventors onboarded, ideas captured, N specs drafted, N OAs filed, weekly cadence, decision meeting | UNAVAILABLE | External input | |
| Investments | ROI summary | No source loaded | — | ROI is withheld until non-overlapping savings and the client-specific proposed spend are both verified. | Total savings identified across the audit vs proposed spend - prices the offer against the Cost club number | UNAVAILABLE | External input | |
| Investments | Governance | No source loaded | — | Governance should name one accountable partner, the update cadence and the approval process in the final proposal. | Single accountable partner, weekly update cadence, all approvals in Pulse | UNAVAILABLE | External input | |
| Investments | Roadmap | No source loaded | — | The roadmap requires dated actions, owners and measurable two-quarter outcomes before it can become a headline. | Numbered first-two-quarters plan ending in a measurable outcome (e.g. diligence score 45->90) | UNAVAILABLE | External input | |