The royalty statement comes in thin this quarter, and the licensor already knows the number doesn't match the license.

The royalty statement lands in the licensor's inbox on the fifteenth, same as every quarter, except this quarter the number is thin against what the license actually requires. A licensee three states away keeps operating past the field of use the agreement defined, and the licensor's own outside counsel has never actually litigated a license-contract fight, only patent prosecution.

Neither the licensor staring at the statement nor the licensee facing a termination letter is thinking about a licensing lawyer last month. This week, that is the only name either of them wants.

The license fight runs on the statement's arrival, not on a referral's turnover

A royalty statement looks thin against what the license actually requires. A sublicense gets granted without authorization. A licensee keeps operating outside the field of use the agreement defined. An exhaustion argument gets raised to justify conduct the license never contemplated. These are contract fights over an existing license, not a use that was never authorized at all, and the licensor or licensee living it usually has the specific clause in front of them already.

Patent litigators and tech-transfer offices refer these files until the relationship runs its course, a litigator moves to a firm without this practice, a tech-transfer office turns over staff. The company staring at a thin royalty statement this week does not wait for that pipeline to refill.

Unauthorized use, a use with no license in place at all, is a different practice entirely and lives on IP infringement recovery. A license-contract fight and an infringement recovery matter look similar from a distance but require different first questions.

What a buyer is actually searching

The licensor with a suspect royalty statement searches specifically: royalty audit attorney, sublicense dispute, field of use violation, license agreement breach. They usually have the statement or the specific clause already in hand.

The licensee facing a termination threat searches differently: IP license defense attorney, field-of-use dispute counsel. The urgency is defending an ongoing relationship, not initiating a claim.

A generic "IP lawyer" campaign will as easily catch someone looking for patent prosecution as a licensor with a live royalty dispute, and those buyers need entirely different pages.

Objections we hear

Our patent litigator already handles licensing. Patent litigators who focus on infringement suits often refer contract-based licensing disputes out, because the skill set and the economics are different.

This is the same as infringement recovery. It is not. A licensing dispute involves an existing agreement being interpreted or breached. Infringement recovery involves a use with no license at all.

Our tech-transfer office already refers this work. That office turns over staff and priorities regularly, and the royalty statement in question does not wait for a relationship to be rebuilt.

The doctrine that ends a royalty fight before it starts

A licensor who discovers a licensee still selling product built under an expired patent often assumes the royalty obligation survives as long as the contract says it does. Under the rule from Brulotte v. Thys Co., reaffirmed in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, a patent royalty agreement is unenforceable for sales made after the patent expires, contract language notwithstanding. A licensor chasing post-expiration royalties on the strength of the contract alone can be chasing a number no court will award.

The exhaustion side runs the opposite direction. Under Impression Products v. Lexmark, an authorized sale of a patented product exhausts the patent holder's rights in that specific item, regardless of restrictions the seller tried to impose, and regardless of where the sale happened. A licensor who assumes a field-of-use or resale restriction survives the first authorized sale can find the restriction was never enforceable against that buyer to begin with.

Ready to grow your pipeline?

Share a few details and we'll follow up with exactly how this works for a firm like yours.

Leave blank

Name *

Firm / Company *

Email *

Phone

Send

Lawyer-to-lawyer, in select circumstances

Lawyers may solicit other lawyers, and in select circumstances, when the target is referring counsel rather than the company in the license fight, direct mail or similar correspondence to other lawyers can be part of the work. That is an exception, not the default. It is not a list of brand owners. It is not a list of licensees. It is not LinkedIn message outreach. Bar rules vary by state, and the firm confirms what it can run before anything goes out.

What runs, and what we will not do

Google ads built around the specific fight a licensor or licensee actually types, a royalty gap, an unauthorized sublicense, a field-of-use breach, an exhaustion dispute, not one generic "IP lawyer" campaign competing for patent-prosecution traffic it was never built to win. Foundational web presence, so the click lands on a licensing practice, not a generic IP mill that loses the click in the ten seconds it took to arrive.

LinkedIn placements aimed at patent litigators and tech-transfer counsel who already know which firm takes the license fight they cannot keep, run as paid placements only, never InMail, connection-request sequences, or direct messages. We do not run that channel, and it is not part of this program under any name.

What we will not do: write to the brand owner. We do not build a solicitation list of licensors or licensees, and we do not mail, email, or call a brand owner or technology company who has not searched or asked. We do not sit the license fight or recover the royalty ourselves. We make the firm findable. The firm does the work.

Why a generalist agency gets this practice wrong

An agency selling "IP lawyer" leads at scale cannot tell a licensor with a thin royalty statement apart from someone searching for patent prosecution, and the bidding shows it. They also cannot separate a license-contract fight from unauthorized-use infringement recovery, a different matter type on a different hub entirely.

We will run a tight campaign for a firm that closes fewer files at higher value, not a generic IP mill chasing every licensing keyword in the market. That is the point of this page.

How this is billed

This is Visibility Program work, not the outbound program. You pay ad spend directly to the platforms, Google and, where it runs, LinkedIn. ROI Wire bills a retainer that scales with that spend, not a flat project fee and not a percentage of closed files.

A landing page may be included at no additional cost. A full website build is always quoted and billed separately. Copywriting, directory work, and the reputation surfaces a licensor or licensee checks before trusting a firm with a live, dated dispute sit under this track as the credibility layer that holds the traffic, not as a correspondence program running in parallel. Ads can be live in under a week. Approval on your side, the keywords, the spend, the page the click lands on, usually determines the timeline, not the platforms.

Who this fits, and who it does not

This fits firms that actually litigate or negotiate license-contract disputes, in the technology and license types they know cold, with the capacity to respond to a fresh royalty or field-of-use dispute. The lead worth the spend is a licensor or licensee with a real, live contract fight.

It does not fit a firm whose real book is unauthorized-use infringement recovery, a different matter type on a different hub, or one without contract-specific IP licensing depth. That work is not merged onto this page.