# IPflair Negotiation Brief — 2026-06-12
One page. Targets, walk-aways, and the asks. Companion to `00_IPflair_Engagement_Review_2026-06-12.md`.

## Your leverage
- 8 applications, not 1 — you are a portfolio client, not a one-idea individual.
- Specifications already drafted — you're buying review + filing + prosecution, not drafting.
- Their pricing positions them as volume/cost-effective — they want startup logos and volume.
- You can self-file Monday — you don't need them for FD.

## Price targets

| Service | Their quote | Target | Rationale / ask |
|---|---|---|---|
| Novelty search | ₹10K/app | Skip (or 1 sample) | Prior-art search + FTO opinion already done in-house |
| Provisional drafting | ₹8K/app | **₹0 — not buying** | Specs are drafted. Do not let them "re-draft" |
| **Review of drafted spec + e-filing as agent** | not quoted | **₹5–8K/app filing + ₹15–25K one-time review of P02/P03 Claim 1 vs Semaladhari** | The actual Stage-1 engagement. Their effort is form-filling + portal work |
| Complete specification (2027) | ₹35K/app | **₹25–28K/app at 8-family commitment** | Portfolio rate; stage commitment: 2 families first, 6 on quality |
| RFE filing | ₹8K/app | ₹5K/app at volume | Mechanical filing |
| Form 3 | ₹5K | Per-event only | Rule 12(2) amended 2024 — event-triggered, not periodic; don't accept recurring billing |
| FER response | ₹35K/app | Hold (quality matters) | Don't squeeze where quality counts; this is where §3(k) is won |
| Hearing + submission | ₹35K | Hold | Same |
| **Disbursement** | ₹30K | **Itemize or strike** | Unexplained; refuse lump-sum |
| Excess pages/claims | "as per IPO" | **Schedule in writing** | Your specs + drawings likely exceed 30 pp; complete specs will exceed 10 claims |

## Non-price asks (worth more than the discount)
1. **Named agent:** which IN/PA-registered agent personally handles your files; their CRI/AI/software prosecution experience; ask for examples of granted CRI patents and §3(k) FER responses. Verify the IN/PA number on the IP India register.
2. **Confirm scope understanding in writing:** "file our drafted Form 2 specifications as-is after review; no re-drafting to your standard provisional format." (Their 150-word-abstract product would destroy §11(2) priority coverage.)
3. **Timeline commitment:** can they review P02/P03 Claim 1 and e-file all 8 by Jun 15 — or within ≤1 week slip? If no → self-file Monday, appoint them later via Form 26 if Stage 1 impresses.
4. **NDA:** signed with the Verixa edits (deemed confidentiality for invention materials, written-records standard, return/destruction, 5-yr term + trade-secret survival, injunctive relief, no licence, Bengaluru jurisdiction).
5. **GST**: 18% on all professional fees — confirm quotes are exclusive and budget accordingly.
6. **Fee tier at assignment:** flag now that the applicant may change from natural person to the funded entity; ask them to confirm the fee-category process (Form 28 etc.) so there are no surprise differentials mid-prosecution.

## Walk-aways
- They insist on their thin-provisional format → walk (portfolio-damaging).
- Disbursement stays unexplained → walk from that line item.
- Stage-1 review work product is shallow (no claim-element mapping vs Semaladhari, no §3(k) framing) → pay, learn, take the 2027 complete-spec work elsewhere. Get 1–2 comparison quotes from CRI-specialist firms regardless.

## Budget envelope (8 families, lifecycle, their list prices)
~₹13–14L professional fees + 18% GST + official fees + excess-page/claim fees. Target after negotiation: **₹10–11L + GST**. Feed into seed use-of-funds legal/IP line.

---

## FOUNDER VERDICT — LOCKED 2026-06-12

**Do not engage IPflair on their standard provisional scope.** Use them only under a narrow written scope: review + filing of already-drafted Form 2 specs. No re-drafting. No thin provisional. Confidence 82%.

**Engagement structure (locked):**
- **Stage 1 — paid test, 2 families only (P02, P03):** written review of Claim 1 / novelty / §3(k) framing / Semaladhari prior-art mapping. Budget ₹15–35K. NOT all 8 families.
- **Stage 2 — filing only, conditional on Stage 1 pass:** e-file all 8 as drafted; filing-only fee; no drafting fee for work already done.
- **Stage 3 — complete specs (2027): NOT committed now.** Test CRI/software quality first; profile claims are marketing until backed by granted CRI/AI examples.

**Hard rules:** do not fill the IDF (reply: "We have complete Form 2 specifications; we will provide those under NDA; we will not complete a separate IDF unless counsel explains why it is legally required"). Mark every transmittal "CONFIDENTIAL — VERIXA PATENT FILING MATERIAL" (PDFs, drawings, emails, annexures, zips). Never send: MIRA prompt templates, domain relevance matrix, scoring weights, training-data details, internal orchestration logic.

**NDA:** send only the Verixa-edits version (now includes clause C(5): no use for training/templates/marketing/other clients + subcontractor flow-down). If they resist the NDA fixes or insist on their standard provisional format → confidence drops, walk.

**The 10 questions (send with the reply email):**
1. Can you file already-drafted Form 2 provisional specifications without converting them into your standard short provisional?
2. What is your filing-only fee per application?
3. Who will personally review the specs? Provide patent-agent registration number.
4. Provide 2–3 examples of granted Indian software/AI/CRI patents you drafted or prosecuted.
5. Provide an example FER response involving §3(k).
6. What exactly is the ₹30,000 disbursement?
7. Confirm excess page, drawing, and claim charges in writing.
8. Confirm whether you can file within the current deadline.
9. Confirm you will not use our materials for training, templates, marketing, or other clients.
10. Confirm all subcontractors/employees accessing files are bound by confidentiality.

*Negotiation support only — engagement terms and legal sufficiency require your judgment and, where needed, independent counsel.*