The royalty gap is already on the statement.

Royalty underpayment, unauthorized sublicensing, field-of-use breaches, exhaustion arguments. These files arrive through patent litigators and tech-transfer offices until they do not. Writing to technology companies and brand owners is the outbound program. It is not this practice.

We do not write to those brand owners, and we do not mail the licensee the week the statement looks thin. The job is to be findable in the days the gap creates, and to be the name a referring IP lawyer already has when they cannot keep the contract fight.

Unauthorized use (not a license contract) lives on IP infringement recovery. Different matter, same model, different page.

How These Deals Actually Work

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.

A licensee facing a termination threat over an exhaustion or field-of-use dispute searches differently: IP license defense attorney. The urgency is defending an ongoing business 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.

Who This Is Actually For

Firms that actually litigate or negotiate license-contract disputes, in the technology and license types they know, 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.

This is a poor fit for 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. Bid the license disputes you actually run.

How the campaign runs

Google ads for the people in the fight. Not one generic “IP lawyer” campaign. Licensors searching a royalty gap, an unauthorized sublicense, or a field-of-use breach. Licensees searching counsel after a field-of-use or exhaustion letter. Keywords are always custom to the license types you actually try. Brand bidding and competitor-brand bidding only when the strategy calls for it. Details: paid search.

Foundational work in parallel: the website, local directories, and general search appearance, so the click lands on a licensing practice and not a generic IP mill. Bios and listings in the language of the royalty, the sublicense, and the field of use. A landing page may be included; a full website is quoted separately. Directories and bios: online profile development.

LinkedIn ads aimed at referring counsel: CLE and lunch-and-learns for patent litigators and tech-transfer counsel who should not keep the license fight. Paid ads only. We do not offer LinkedIn message outreach (InMail, connection sequences, or DMs). That is a different channel, we do not run it, and it is not part of this program.

Ads produce inbound while the statement is still a search. Foundation is why a licensor or a referring lawyer trusts the firm enough to call.

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

Why we're not generalists

Generalist marketing agencies will not take the time to understand how this practice actually wins work. The practice is too specialized, the file count is too small, and the work of understanding it bores them. They want large spend and a lot of traffic to a landing page. We will run a tight campaign for a shop that closes fewer files at a higher value. That is the point of this page.

Most agencies do not understand specialized industries well enough to advertise them honestly. We take the time to learn how the work is sold so the keywords and the page the click lands on match the work you actually take. A complex practice deserves that. A generic landing page does not.

How fast this can run

We can get ads live in under a week. What usually slows that down is approval on your side: the keywords, the spend, the page the click lands on. Directories, bios, and a site a buyer will trust take longer to finish. The website and listings are why the person who clicks trusts you. It is not the same as going live on search.

Lawyer-to-lawyer, in select circumstances

Lawyers may solicit other lawyers. 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 still vary; the firm confirms what it can run. We do not represent that any channel is permitted everywhere.

How this is billed

This is Visibility Program work, not the outbound program. You pay ad spend directly to the platforms (Google and, where we run it, LinkedIn). ROI Wire is billed on a retainer that scales with that spend. That is not a flat project fee, not a percentage of closed files, and not an outbound retainer.

A landing page may be included at no additional cost. A full website build is always quoted and billed separately. Foundational services (copywriting, CRM, multichannel sequences, web design) sit under this track as the credibility layer, not as a correspondence program.

Scope is on the Visibility Program. Search mechanics are on paid search. Surfaces are on online profile development.

What is not included

We do not build a solicitation list of licensors or licensees. We do not write, mail, or phone brand owners or technology companies who did not ask. We do not sit the license fight or recover the royalty. We make the firm findable. The firm does the work.

Unauthorized-use recovery is a different page under high-stakes. Do not merge them.

Program pages

Visibility Program

How this work is scoped and billed.

Paid search

Google ads. You pay the ad spend. We bill a retainer that scales with it.

Online profile development

Directories, bios, and reputation surfaces a buyer checks after they see you.