Scientific Due Diligence
The science, verified before the wire clears.
Independent technical diligence on life-sciences deals — mechanism, IP position, and the risks a data room doesn’t surface. Read by a molecular biologist who has run the experiments and filed the patents.
—
Reserved for
pro headshot
Founder & Principal Analyst
- 500+
- Patent families mapped
- 48hr
- Rapid screen turnaround
- 13yr
- Bench and industry
- 8
- Peer-reviewed papers
- 1
- Granted US patent
| Year | Families filed | FTO contested |
|---|---|---|
| 2015 | 9 | 0 |
| 2016 | 13 | 1 |
| 2017 | 18 | 2 |
| 2018 | 26 | 4 |
| 2019 | 34 | 6 |
| 2020 | 45 | 9 |
| 2021 | 52 | 13 |
| 2022 | 61 | 17 |
| 2023 | 58 | 15 |
| 2024 | 66 | 21 |
| 2025 | 72 | 26 |
| 2026 | 49 | 18 |
Patent family density across CRISPR delivery subdomains, 2015–2026. Gold denotes families with contested freedom-to-operate positions identified during landscape review. Illustrative of deliverable output; not drawn from a client engagement.
Engagements
8 service linesMechanism validation, IP strength, and key risk identification for an investment decision.
Technology clustering, white space identification, and competitive IP position.
Claim-by-claim scientific analysis against the art that actually reads on the invention.
Continuous filing and competitor alerts with a monthly interpreted intelligence brief.
Technical support for IP counsel on life-sciences matters, testifying and non-testifying.
Manuscripts, abstracts, white papers, and technical content by the project.
SBIR/STTR and NIH technical narratives, specific aims through submission-ready.
Reserved monthly capacity. Deals vetted on demand with a standing response SLA.
Method
Four passes, every engagement01
Claim extraction
Every assertion in the deck and the data room is isolated and rewritten as a falsifiable statement. You cannot test a narrative; you can test a claim.
02
Literature test
Each claim is checked against primary literature — not abstracts, not press releases. Results that contradict the thesis are surfaced, not smoothed.
03
IP position
Claim scope, prosecution history, and the competitive neighborhood, read by a named inventor who has been through prosecution firsthand.
04
Risk scoring
Findings ranked by what could actually kill the thesis, each with a stated confidence level. Where the evidence is thin, the report says so.
You get a document, not a phone call
Lipid nanoparticle delivery platform — seed round
- Mechanism plausibility
- Supported
- Claimed 4× transfection efficiency
- Partial
- Freedom to operate — core claim
- Contested
- Scale-up feasibility
- Unverified
- Team capability
- Strong
Confidence 73% · 14 sources · 31 patent families
- 01An executive summary your investment committee can read in four minutes.
- 02Every finding sourced to a paper, patent, or filing — with the citation inline.
- 03Confidence stated as a number. Where the evidence is thin, it says so.
- 04The questions to put to the founder, written for you to use verbatim.
Position
Not CRA. Not Exponent. Not a GLG call.
Large firms quote in months and hand the engagement to an associate. Expert networks sell you an hour with someone who may never have read the patents. Both are structurally wrong for a deal that closes in three weeks.
Priori is a single scientist doing the work. The person on the call is the person who writes the report. There is no bench to hand it to, which is the point.
The analysis reflects the science. Full stop.
No equity. No retainer from the company being evaluated. No financial stake in the outcome — because independence is not a feature of the product, it is the product.
- Nature Nanotechnology
- ACS Nano
- USPTO Patent Holder
- NDSEG Fellow
- UC Riverside
- BASF
Next step
Send the deck. Get the science back.
A one-paragraph summary of the technology is enough to scope an engagement. You will get a written scope and timeline within 24 hours — not a discovery call about a discovery call.