For universities, RMCs, TTOs and innovation organisations
A structured readiness checkpoint placed upstream of formal patent evaluation and filing expenditure.
Short answer
Institutions can use INVENTION GO/NO-GO™ as an upstream readiness checkpoint: inventors complete a structured pre-patent assessment before a disclosure consumes reviewer, counsel or filing budget. The result is a consistent basis for triage and a documented position on clarity, novelty, disclosure history, technical maturity, commercial purpose and protection route. It complements — and does not replace — TTOs, patent agents, MyIPO processes, legal counsel or institutional due diligence.
The problem at intake
Most institutions face the same pattern. Disclosure volume is high, reviewer capacity is finite, and a substantial share of submissions arrive before the underlying work is ready to evaluate: the invention is described in aspirational terms, no prior art has been examined, the disclosure history is unrecorded, and no one has stated which commercial decision the protection would serve.
Screening those cases consumes exactly the resources that should be reserved for strong ones — and when weak submissions still proceed, the cost surfaces later as thin specifications, avoidable prosecution effort and portfolios with maintenance obligations nobody can justify.
An upstream checkpoint
A readiness assessment placed before formal evaluation changes what arrives. Inventors do the preparatory thinking themselves, in a defined structure, and the output tells the reviewer where the case stands across six dimensions rather than how confident the inventor is. Cases that are not ready are identified as not-yet rather than rejected, with the specific gaps named.
Where it can be used
RMC / TTO intake
A required readiness step before an invention disclosure enters formal review, so reviewers spend their time on cases that are actually ready.
Invention disclosure clinics
A shared instrument that gives every attending researcher the same structured questions and the same vocabulary for gaps.
Innovation competitions
A consistent screening layer that separates developed technical submissions from early concepts without relying on presentation quality.
Research commercialisation programmes
A module on protection decisions that connects publication timing, disclosure risk and commercial purpose.
Accelerator cohorts
Pre-work before IP sessions, so mentor time is spent on decisions rather than on establishing basic facts.
Workshops and training
A structured backbone for a session on pre-filing decision quality, with a documented outcome per participant.
What institutions get from it
- Consistency: every disclosure assessed against the same defined criteria.
- Earlier detection of disclosure and timing problems, particularly around publication.
- Reduced reviewer time spent establishing basic facts.
- A documented decision trail showing why a case proceeded, paused, or was held back.
- Better briefing material for external patent professionals, which shortens their work.
Discussing a programme
If you are considering readiness assessment for an intake workflow, a clinic, a competition or a cohort, tell us the stage at which you would use it and the volume involved. Related reading: patent readiness for university researchers and public disclosure before filing.
Talk to us about institutional use
Describe your workflow and cohort, and we will respond with what is practical.
Frequently asked questions
Raja Muhazam Farid
IP & patent practitioner · ISMS trainer & consultant · Applied learning-tool developer
Raja Muhazam Farid is a Malaysian intellectual-property and patent practitioner, patent drafter and consultant. His work also spans information-security management, ISMS training and consultancy, audit and assurance, anti-bribery training and business continuity planning. Through RAMUHA INNOVATION, he develops applied tools that turn professional experience into structured questions, practical exercises and evidence-informed judgement.
The published tools support learning and judgement; they do not confer professional qualifications. Patent-related material is not legal advice or a patentability opinion.