A patent attorney is a licensed professional qualified to draft, file and prosecute patent applications and provide broader legal advice, including litigation, unlike a US patent agent who can only handle the technical patent work. In the US both are registered to practise before the USPTO; in Europe the equivalent professionals are European patent attorneys registered with the EPO and national practitioners such as UK chartered patent attorneys and German Patentanwälte.

"Patent lawyer" and "patent attorney" are used interchangeably; both are licensed attorneys qualified to draft, file and prosecute patents and provide legal advice more broadly, including litigation. A patent agent, by contrast, can handle the same technical patent work but isn't a licensed attorney and can't represent clients in court. This attorney/agent split is US terminology; in Europe, "patent attorney" is itself the qualified profession, distinct from a general lawyer.

The USPTO maintains a searchable directory of registered patent attorneys and agents, the EPO publishes a directory of European patent attorneys, and national bodies like the UK's CIPA offer their own listings by location and technology specialisation. Increasingly, AI-native firms like Lightbringer give founders direct access to in-house patent attorneys and IP specialists, without needing a separate local search.

Both are qualified to draft and prosecute patent applications, but only an attorney can provide broader legal advice and represent you in court if a dispute arises. For most standard filing purposes, either can handle the technical work; litigation or complex legal questions require an attorney specifically.

Yes, most patent offices, including the USPTO, EPO and UK IPO, permit self-represented filing for domestic applicants, but claim drafting requires precise legal language, and self-drafted claims are a common source of weak or unenforceable protection. Most inventors get at least an attorney review even when handling much of the disclosure and initial drafting themselves.

You can legally file without one, but the risk is weak claim language that either fails to get granted or grants with protection narrower than intended. An attorney review, even a limited one, is generally worth the cost relative to the risk of a poorly drafted application.

A patent office action is a formal written communication from a patent examiner stating a decision on an application, including any rejections or objections and the reasoning behind them. Response deadlines vary by office: typically three months at the USPTO, extendable to six with a fee, and usually four months at the EPO.

A patent rejection most commonly cites prior art that anticipates or makes the invention obvious, unclear or overly broad claim language, or subject matter that isn't eligible for patent protection. The rejection isn't necessarily final; most applications go through at least one round of rejection and response before allowance.

A patent examiner interview is a direct conversation, often by phone or video, between the applicant's attorney and the assigned examiner to discuss and potentially resolve rejections more efficiently than through written responses alone; the EPO offers similar informal consultations and, more formally, oral proceedings. It's a commonly used, often underused, tool for moving a stalled application forward.

Patent prosecution is the full back-and-forth process between the applicant and the patent office examiner during examination, including responding to office actions and negotiating claim scope, continuing until the application is either allowed or finally rejected and abandoned. It's a standard part of nearly every patent application, not a sign that something has gone wrong.

Patent licensing is granting another party the right to use a patented invention in exchange for royalties or fees, without transferring ownership of the patent itself. It's a common way for patent owners to monetise inventions outside their own core products.