Firms P, Q, R, S, T
Recommended firms
Ranked by expected cost to allowance at equal outcome · AU 1600 formulation families, 3-jurisdiction filings, last 24 months · pooled benchmark: this client plus 2 opted-in pharma companies (k ≥ 20)| Rank | Firm | Expected cost to allowance | Range (p20–p80) | Cycle time | Allowance rate | Compliance friction | Capacity | Confidence (n) |
|---|
Expected saving vs incumbent on this matter: —If applied as a routing rule for AU 1600 formulation families: $1.9M over the next cohortOverrides require a reason and feed the model.
Why — ranks first
What would change the answer
- More than 15 jurisdictions: Firm R moves to first (stronger EP/JP agent network). Try it in the jurisdictions field.
- Hard examiner: Firms R and S move up (higher allowance on contested art).
- Inventor-relationship weight set to high: Firm Q stays, with an OA-count covenant attached and the override logged.
Panel simulation
Apply this routing to all AU 1600 formulation families (est. 140 families/yr):
Expected cohort saving$1.9MTime to grant−4 monthsMax firm concentration26%Firms losing volumeQ, V