Competitor Patent Monitoring: What I Actually Watch For, and When I Call the Client

In my 20 years of practice I have run patent monitoring for many companies. What they want from it is usually simpler than the vendors' dashboards suggest: they want to know how their competitors' patent applications are progressing, and they want to be told when something needs a decision.

This article describes how I run it, the specific signal I watch for, and one matter where monitoring let a client act before it was too late.

What do companies actually want from patent monitoring?

The question my clients ask is not "how many patents did our competitor file this quarter?" It is "is our competitor trying to patent something that affects us, and how far has it got?"

That is a question about progress. An application that has just been published is in a very different position from a patent that has already been granted. While an application is pending, there are procedural ways to put relevant prior art in front of the examiner. After grant, the options become slower, more expensive and more adversarial. Monitoring is valuable mainly because it moves the moment you find out to an earlier point.

How often should you review competitor patents?

For the companies I monitor for, the usual rhythm is once a month. A monthly review is frequent enough to see newly published applications and status changes while they are still actionable, and infrequent enough that someone actually reads the results instead of skimming an inbox full of alerts.

The cadence matters less than the discipline of reading. An alert that nobody opens is not monitoring.

Which signal makes me alert the client?

China has three types of patent: invention patents, utility model patents and design patents. When I see the same competitor applying for any two of these three types for the same product, I tell the client.

The reasoning is straightforward. Filing more than one type of protection on a single product costs more and takes more effort than filing one. A company does that when it cares about that particular product. For the client, it is a pointer to the filings worth reading carefully, right away, rather than leaving them in the monthly pile.

For readers outside China: utility models exist in some other jurisdictions too, such as Germany and Japan, but there is no equivalent in the US or at the European Patent Office. If you only watch US and European filings, you will not see this pattern, and you may miss the Chinese utility model that becomes enforceable much sooner than a pending invention application.

When one competitor files two different types of patent on the same product, treat it as a priority. It tells you what they care about, and those filings deserve a close read the same month you see them.

Can monitoring actually stop a competitor's patent?

It can, if you see the application early enough. Here is a matter from my own practice.

While monitoring for a client, we noticed that one of their competitors had filed two types of patent for a single product — exactly the signal described above. When we read the filings, we found that the competitor had taken our client's best-selling product, made only a small improvement to it, and applied for new patents on the result.

Because we saw it while the application was still pending, we submitted public observations in time, and that stopped the competitor's application.

The lesson I draw from it is about timing. The relevant facts were available to anyone who read the filings. What made the difference was that someone read them in the same month, recognised what they meant, and acted while the procedure still allowed a third party to be heard.

The value of monitoring is the window it opens. A pending application can still be challenged with third-party observations; a granted patent usually means a more costly fight.

Most major patent systems provide some route for third parties to submit prior art during examination. In China, under Rule 54 of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law, anyone may submit observations, with reasons, on an invention application from its publication until the grant is announced. At the European Patent Office, Article 115 EPC allows third-party observations. In the US, under 35 U.S.C. 122(e) a third party may, within statutory time limits, submit patents, published applications or other printed publications of potential relevance, together with a concise description of their relevance; the timing and material restrictions are specific and do not mirror China's observation window. The details, deadlines and what an examiner must do with the submission differ, so check the rules for each office before relying on them.

This is not legal advice; consult a qualified patent attorney for your situation.

How should you set up a monitoring routine?

Based on how I work, a practical routine looks like this:

1. Decide whose filings you watch. List the competitors that matter, under every name they file under, including subsidiaries.
2. Decide what you are asking. For most companies, the question is the progress of competitors' applications on products that overlap with yours.
3. Review on a fixed rhythm. Monthly works for the companies I monitor for.
4. Flag the signal. One competitor, one product, two patent types: read those filings immediately.
5. Read the claims, not the titles. A title tells you the topic; only the claims tell you what the competitor is trying to own, and whether it reaches your product.
6. Act while the application is pending. If you have relevant prior art — including your own earlier products — that is when it is most useful.

Monitoring is not glamorous work. Most months nothing important happens. Its value comes from the month when something does, and you are the one who sees it first.