Invention disclosures convert into summary-first, decision-ready assessments with supporting evidence.
Back to all proofs
From days of invention assessment to decision-ready reviews in hours
Client
Date
Leading US research university TTO
08/2026
The challenge
A leading US public research university's technology transfer office assesses a continuous inbound pipeline of invention disclosures, each needing a structured read on market, prior art, readiness and commercial potential. The office put that at 60 to 100 hours of manual work per disclosure, so a small team evaluated a few properly and triaged the rest on instinct.
The solution
FifthRow set up an invention commercialisation capability on a single intake: a disclosure in, a structured assessment, a partner-facing summary and a ranked list of licensing candidates out. It runs against the office's own evaluation template rather than a generic one, so the standard is the office's and the work is not.
50%+
less time to complete an invention assessment81
structured reviews against a 60 to 100 hour manual benchmarkTime to complete a market and commercialisation assessmentmore than 50% shorter, in the office's own words, with research that took days now taking hours
Structured invention reviews completed in twelve months81
Analyst time displaced4,860 to 8,100 hours, against the office's own benchmark of 60 to 100 hours per disclosure
Evaluation standardthe office's own template, configured into the system and iterated across three versions on its feedback
Work per technologyone intake covering both the internal assessment and the commercialisation research, in place of two separate submissions
The first system does the work that decided how many technologies got a proper look. A disclosure goes in, as a short description or an uploaded document, and a standalone assessment comes back with the evidence underneath it.
Core Activities
- Accepts a short description or an uploaded disclosure, with no preformatted dataset required
- Returns one structured assessment per disclosure covering market landscape, prior art and competitive position, technology readiness and commercial potential, with sources attached
- Runs patent landscape scanning against the disclosure itself to establish where it sits competitively
- Flags maturity, risks, validation needs and adoption barriers, so a go or no-go call rests on something written down
- Applies the office's own evaluation template, iterated across three versions on the office's feedback until it matched the standard the committee expects
The Results
A summary-first assessment that stands on its own for an internal decision, and stays useful afterwards as a durable reference for committee discussions and early partner conversations rather than being rebuilt each time it is needed.
60 to 100 hours
of manual assessment replaced by one structured runAn assessment tells the office what it has. The second system tells everyone else why it matters, from the same inputs, so the commercial story is not a separate exercise starting from a blank page.
Core Activities
- Clarifies what the invention is and why it matters, from a technical description a non-specialist reader could not act on
- Translates technical features into outcomes and benefits an external reader recognises
- Defines the unmet need and the highest-probability applications rather than listing every possible one
- Packages the result as a concise executive summary usable in outreach, decks and portfolio updates
- Generates from a short input or a full document, so a narrative can be produced whenever a technology needs one
The Results
A credible commercialisation narrative exists for a technology as soon as the assessment does. Inventors and market messaging start from the same document, which is what makes a first partner conversation about fit rather than about interpretation.
1 intake
behind both the internal assessment and the partner-facing summaryThe last stretch of the office's mandate is finding who would actually license the technology. The third system establishes what a good fit looks like, then returns ranked candidates with the reasoning attached.
Core Activities
- Establishes what a good-fit partner looks like for the specific invention before any searching starts
- Surfaces and prioritises companies that match, ranked by strategic and domain alignment
- Attaches a concise rationale to each candidate, so a shortlist can be argued rather than just presented
- Returns relevant contacts alongside the companies, so the list is ready for outreach rather than ready for more research
- Works from the same inputs as the assessment, so a target list follows an evaluation without a new brief
The Results
The path from a completed assessment to a target list to outbound contact runs inside one process. Manual list-building stopped being the tax on every technology the office decided to pursue.
2
vendor submissions per technology replaced by oneWhat it proved
In twelve months the office completed 81 structured invention reviews against one configured standard, each covering market landscape, prior art and competitive position, technology readiness and commercial potential with the sources attached. Measured against the office's own manual benchmark of 60 to 100 hours per disclosure, that is between 4,860 and 8,100 hours of analyst work displaced. In the office's own words the time to complete an assessment fell by more than half, and research that used to take days now takes hours.
What the office holds is a standard rather than a stack of reports. The full inbound portfolio is triaged and prioritised for licensing instead of being screened on instinct once the properly evaluated few were done, and the commercialisation half of the mandate runs off the same inputs as the assessment rather than being commissioned separately, per technology, from a second supplier. The office describes the result as "a game-changer for resource-constrained tech transfer offices", and it reached it without adding internal headcount.
Results
MetricBenchmarkResultImprovement
Time to complete an assessment
Benchmark: research that took days per technology, in the office's own accountResult: the same research completed in hours
more than 50% less time, in the office's own wordsAnalyst time per invention assessment
Benchmark: 60 to 100 hours of manual work per disclosure, the office's own benchmarkResult: one structured run per disclosure, 81 completed in twelve months
4,860 to 8,100 hours displacedHow much of the inbound pipeline got a proper evaluation
Benchmark: a small team could evaluate a few properly and triaged the rest on instinctResult: the full inbound portfolio assessed and ranked for licensing
screening on instinct replaced by a standardConsistency of evaluation between technologies
Benchmark: each assessment shaped by whoever ran it and what they had time to reachResult: one configured template, iterated to the office's own standard, applied to every disclosure
one standard across the portfolioCommercialisation research
Benchmark: bought separately per technology, from a second supplier, on a second submissionResult: produced from the same inputs as the assessment
two submissions per technology replaced by oneBuilding a licensing target list
Benchmark: assembled by hand, per technologyResult: ranked candidates with a rationale and relevant contacts attached to the assessment
list-building replaced by a shortlist ready for outreachEvery disclosure is read against the same configured template, so two technologies from unrelated fields can be ranked side by side.
Technical descriptions translate into outcome-led summaries an external reader can act on, generated from the same inputs as the assessment.
Credible licensees arrive ranked by fit, with the reasoning and the relevant contacts already attached.
More inventions move through evaluation without expanding a resource-constrained office.
Outputs remain useful for committees and early partner discussions instead of dying in email threads.
Matter More
Let's Talk (opens in a new tab)
For Enterprises
ProofSee all
From a standing start to an AI venture serving small businesses
From 72 patents to 4 commercialisation-ready technologies
Cutting a four-month research cycle to six weeks across five validation workstreams
From a weekly newsletter to a self-running innovation radar
A full year's validated-concept target, met in the first quarter
A utility innovation lab that answers its own questions in a day
Finding the next high-growth US metro in five days
Follow Us
Follow us on Linkedin
FifthRow – The Agentic Consultancy
Copyright 2026 FifthRow Inc., Privacy policy