3 Ways Asian Corporations Save 50%+ Costs on Their US Patent Preparation & Prosecution – Webinar
Key-points covered in this webinar:
Key-points covered in the webinar (3 Ways Asian Corporations Save 50%+ Costs on Their US Patent Preparation & Prosecution) are:
- Should we treat all patents under one bucket? The categorization of patents is generally under:
A. Core patents,
B. Envelope patents around a new technology/product company is developing,
C. Improvements in existing technology/products.
- Select separate strategies for different categories of patents:
A. Disadvantages of treating all patents under one bucket – increased patent portfolio cost,
B. Partnering with US based law firm for core patents for filing in US may be crucial from business & strategic purpose,
C. Choosing a strategic partner that can facilitate in reducing cost for preparing envelop patents and Improvement patents for US filing.
- Cost Advantage – Strategic Partner Vs US based Law Firm:
A. Explains the ROI,
B. Describe the model/ process.
- How to choose the Strategic partner keeping in mind the new model.
Tarun Kumar Bansal, President, Sagacious IP
Pankaj Garg, Sr. Manager, Sagacious IP
Prateek Mohunta, COO, Sagacious IP
Submit Your Information to watch the Webinar Video Recording:
Prateek Mohunta speaking- Welcome everyone to the Webinar.
My name is Prateek Mohunta. I am the COO at Sagacious IP and I am your host for this particular session. Sagacious is 350+ patent & IP professional’s company. Sagacious, has been in the business for 12+ years providing various services to clients all across the globe. And, through this initiative of ours that we have on-going, I would like to welcome you to yet another important webinar that we are hosting.
And, the topic for today is “3 Ways Asian Corporations Save 50%+ Costs on their US Patent Preparation and Prosecution.”
So, your participation actually is a wonderful encouragement for our efforts and spreading knowledge during these unfortunate times. I hope all of you are keeping really safe and everyone in your family is safe and sound.
We are also very thankful to our clients for sharing their problems with us. We get to understand the opportunity and come up with topics and solutions to talk which are relevant for everyone to hear.
So, as we move forward, our first speaker and our key speaker for this session is Mr Pankaj Garg. Pankaj is the Senior Manager in the drafting and prosecution team at Sagacious. He brings with him a rich experience of 12+ years and has drafted 500+ patent applications. He has also worked on numerous office action responses for a number of companies in the mechanical and automotive space.
So, welcome to the webinar, Pankaj.
Pankaj Garg speaking- Thank you Prateek!
Going with the flow of webinar, US and EP markets are one of the most important markets of the world. And, they constitute nearly 40% of the world’s consumptions. Therefore, to remain competitive, it becomes imperative for US organizations to file patents in US and EP market.
However, with the current global scenario, the budget of the patent department of traditional companies is sinking. For example, companies in engineering and automobile domain. Also, in the high tech domain, the average life of a patent for technology has come down to 5 years. Therefore, the preparation and prosecution cost is not justified in high tech domain when spending for a high global patent.
Therefore, biggest challenge for Asian companies today is to file and prosecute maximum number of patents in US or EP at an optimized cost.
In this webinar, we aim to discuss various methods/models available to Asian organization. These will reduce global patent preparation and prosecution cost without compromising overall quality of the patent portfolio.
This will enable Asian companies to take informed decision and ultimately embrace a healthy, profitable change.
Challenges Faced by Asian Companies For Global Filing & Strategies Adopted
I would, first, like to discuss the challenges faced by the companies for global filing. And, we will also discuss the various strategies adopted by the Asian companies.
So, going for the challenges. Most Asian companies file their patent in their own country. The preparation and filing of these patents is in native language. For example, a Japanese company prepare the first patent application in Japanese, a China based company in Chinese. And, similarly, a Korea based company in a Korean language.
Also, the preparation of applications is according to the rules of native country which may differ from US and EP.
Now, for filing US or EP patent corresponding to native language patent, Asian companies need to pay high translation cost. High patent attorney fee also follows. That is because, attorney converts the patent application specifically as per the rules and best practices of US and EP patent.
Categories of Patents
One question that comes to my mind is that do we need to spend equal cost for all the patents? As we understand that all patents are not equal. And, in fact, the categorization of patents of any company takes place under the following three categories:
- Core Patents
- Envelope Patents
- Improvement patents.
Core patents relates to inventions which are central to one or more product of the company. And, they act as a key differentiator from the competitors’ product.
Envelope patents revolve around alternative embodiments of the core patents so as to protect infringe invention around the core inventions.
And, the improvement patents happen over the life cycle of the product. They are to make slight improvement in the existing technology or the product.
Now, I would say that all patents are not equal. Therefore, equal global patent filing cost for each of the patent is not justifiable.
So, what big Asian companies do is that they identify, generally, prioritize their patents in a priority list. For example, high priority, mid priority and low priorities. And, how do they do it?
How does Asian Companies Prioritize Patents?
They do it based on the current and future business impact and technological importance of the inventions. This helps the global company to manage their cost, identify valuable patent.
Also, as patents have a priority list from the beginning, IP manager in the future can decide or identify the patent application. We can let go this saving the overall per patent prosecution cost if the budget is further reduced in future.
Now, to save on the patent prosecution, Asian companies choose their patent preparation strategies based on the priority of patents. For example, the US or EP based law firm prepare and file for high priority patents . Although, the cost involved will be high. But, this cost is justified due to higher value of the invention patents.
For low to mid priority patents, big Asian companies, generally, partner with a strategic partner and off-shore vendor. For example, based in India to prepare the English patent application for filing in US or EP. The strategic partner can prepare the applications at a fraction of cost charged by the US or EP attorney. The US or EP based law firms then file these patent applications at the USPTO or EPO.
In this manner, large Asian companies are filing good number of US and EP patents. While managing overall cost without compromising on the quality of patents.
Now, we are going to discuss various models that Asian companies employ for patent preparation and prosecution.
Let’s, first, hear the experience of a patent manager of a Japanese company about using the strategic partner and associated patent preparation model.
Guest Speaker (Mr. Yamazaki’s Experience on Strategic Partner):
Yamazaki speaking- Hello! Namaskar! This is Yamazaki speaking from Furuno Electric Company in Japan. Today, I am going to talk about the internal procedure to prepare and file patent application in foreign countries. For example, at the USPTO, EPO or IPO.
For that, let me please introduce our company briefly. Furuno Electrics Company is the marine electronics company which succeeded in commercializing the world’s first fish finder.
Since then, we have been expanding our services. Our services provide all sailors and fishermen with all solutions of the maritime industry. Our business does not limits to the maritime industry. And, it has already extended to medical, IoT, transportation industries. We continuously contribute to the society by offering better safety, security and comfort to the public.
Implementation of “Hybrid Model 2”
Now, let us get down to the main topic. We have been asking Sagacious Research to draft a patent specification in English from scratch based on the Indian office. We usually have a conference call between India and Japan to explain our invention. This is based on the material above which we translated to English and sent to Sagacious in advance.
This approach would be known as Hybrid Model 2 in today’s presentation. We have decided to go on with this approach for the purpose of reducing translation costs.
We also expect to eliminate unnecessary weight and clear jargon. These may appear in translation process from the original Japanese specification into English.
As you know, the Japanese language is quite different from English. In short, both languages have poor compatibility. And, any direct translation can’t be perfect but this ‘Hybrid Model 2 approach’ discards such difficulties.
In the past, we also tried this approach with our counter-parts in the US. We asked our representative attorneys in the US to draft patent specification in English from scratch for a couple of times.
The result is that we were very happy with the quality of the specifications. While, we were unhappy with the very expensive invoices. Bahut Mehnga!(Very Expensive!)
Implementation of “Hybrid Model 1”
We’re now very happy to have found an authentic and less expensive route in India since our financial department is Kanjoos (Miser).
Recently, we have also started a new challenge to ask Sagacious to complete a patent specification in English. This specification is from the tentative translation which we prepare at our site from the original Japanese language into English.
This approach would be known as ‘Hybrid Model 1 Approach’ in today’s presentation.
During this approach, we make use of various majors to prepare tentative translation. This includes support of the machine translation service and re-usage of the past English specifications.
We also prepare supplementary material in addition to the tentative English translation. It explains the invention itself in detail over conference call. This is to encourage the understanding of the technical aspects and features of the original invention at the Sagacious site.
We can expect further cost cuts with this Hybrid Model 1 approach; through the above described procedures we can obtain English specification. And, we are very comfortable in preparing and filing applications at USPTO or EPO in accordance with our business domain.
That’s all with me today. Bahut Dhanyawaad! Jai Hind!
Hybrid Model Approach 1 and 2: Discussion
Pankaj Garg speaking- Thank you, Yamazaki, for such a wonderful explanation. And, now moving forward, we are going to discuss the ‘Hybrid Model 1 and Hybrid Model 2’. These are used for preparing patent application to be filed in US or EP.
Now, moving on to the Hybrid Model 1. We use this model when we prepare our US or EP patent application for a corresponding native language priority application. For example, a Japanese company might have filed a Japanese language priority application. Now, they want to file the corresponding application in US or EP.
Hybrid Model 1
This model explains how a company can utilize strategic partner to draft good English language based US or EP patent applications. To prepare English language patent application, we receive a rough/machine translation or strategic partner will receive a rough/machine translation of earlier filed native language application. For example, Japanese patent application. Then, based upon the rough translation and also some description of the novelty and the inventive concept, the team at the strategic partner will develop an understanding of the idea.
Then, the strategic partner and patent attorney from the Asian company will get into a call to discuss the various aspects, novelty, to understand the nitty-gritty of the invention.
After that, based on the complete understanding of the invention and the patent, the strategic partner prepares a draft claim. This includes claims based on the claims of the priority application in accordance with the rule of EP or US.
These claims are shared with the representative of the company. And, the representative of the company reviews the draft claims and provides his inputs or comments.
And, thereafter strategic partner finalizes the claims based on the review by the representative of the company and then start preparing the complete specification taking help from the translation of the priority patent application and then submit the complete application for review to the patent attorney at the company side. Now, he may have some feedback and the strategic partner will incorporate those and thereafter prepare the final patent application.
Then, the final application is shared with the US or EP based attorney for filing. And, that’s how the entire patent application is prepared. Accordingly, we save the cost of translation. And. also fee of US or EP patent attorney associated with the conversion of the priority application into US or EP compliant patent application.
Example of Hybrid Model 1
To give you an example, we have considered an example of the cost scenario where we are comparing the cost of preparation of 10 patent applications via traditional methods. For example, by using only US based law firm and is on the hybrid Model 1, where the high priority patents are prepared by the US or EP Law firms and the low to mid priority patents are prepared by the strategic partner.
Generally, the high priority applications constitute 30% of the total patent application and keeping that in mind, therefore, 3 patent applications out of the 10 patent applications will be prepared by US or EP based law firm, while the remaining 7 mid to low priority patent applications will be prepared by the strategic partner. The cost for preparing 3 high priority applications comes out to be around 16,500 USD while the cost for preparing 7 mid to low priority application by the strategic partner comes out around 10,500 USD.
Therefore, in a Hybrid Model 1, the total cost for preparing 10 applications comes around 47,000 USD, while if the Japanese company or the Asian companies use only the US based law firms to prepare all the 10 patent applications, the overall cost comes out to be 55,000 USD.
Therefore, in the Hybrid Model 1, in preparing 10 applications, Asian companies can save almost 51% of the total cost.
Hybrid Model 2
Now, coming to the second model, in the second model, Asian companies, for example, Japanese companies might prefer to prepare the patent application in English first and then convert that patent application into a native language application.
So, for using in that model for preparing the low to mid priority applications, again, the Asian company generally use the strategic partner and they prepare patent applications corresponding to mid to low priority invention.
Now, again, the process for preparing the patent application is a little bit similar to what we discussed in hybrid Model1.
Here, the company will share the complete invention disclosure, any prior-art documents, or any other supporting material with the strategic partner, and then the team at the strategic partner will develop their understanding and confirm the understanding about the essential and the non-essential features of the disclosure with the responsible patent attorney at the company’s end.
The strategic partner will prepare a draft plan including the draft claims according to US or EP rules once everything is confirmed. And, he will share the draft claims with the company’s patent attorney and finalize the claims based on the input from the company’s patent attorney.
Thereafter, the team at the strategic partner and would prepare the complete specification according to the rules and regulations of the USPTO or EPO, and then send the first draft for review to the company. Company representative may give his inputs regarding the nitty-gritty and accordingly, the strategic partner will finalize the entire draft.
In this way, the entire patent application is prepared which can be sent to US or European based law firm for filing. Accordingly, we save the the cost of translation and fee of US or EP patent attorney associated.
Example of Hybrid Model 2
Now and again, we are going to discuss an example of the scenario by taking 10 applications and compare the cost for a Hybrid Model 2 versus cost of preparing the patent applications using a US or EP based law firm.
Here again, as you know, we have categorized the patents into high priority patents and the mid to low priority patents.
Again, in hybrid model 2, the high priority patents will be prepared completely by US based law firms, while the remaining low to mid priority patents will be prepared by the strategic partner. Now, cost for preparing 3 patent applications or the high priority patent applications by US law firm comes out to be 24,000 USD, while the cost for preparing mid to low priority patents by the strategic partners comes out to be 70,500 USD.
On top of that, since these application needs to be converted into a local language patent application, the cost of translation from English is added for the 10 applications which comes out to be around 25,000 dollars.
So, therefore total cost for preparing 10 patent applications using hybrid model 2 comes out to be around 66,000 dollars while the cost for preparing the complete patent application using a US based law firm comes out to be 105,000 USD.
Therefore, in this model, the Asian company saves a lot of money. Approximately 37% of the cost is saved when an Asian company chooses Hybrid Model 2.
Similar to the patent preparation models, Asian companies use strategic partner for preparing responses to objections raised by US or EP Examiners.
How are the models used and help in cost saving?
Here, again, Asian company generally use two models. Next few slides discuss how the models are used and also the cost saving.
Hybrid Model 1
So, let’s get to the first model. In this model, again, the responses for the high priority patent application are prepared by the US based law firm, while the responses for the low to mid priority patents are prepared by the strategic partner.
For using the strategic partner, this slide discloses the overall procedure wherein, at first, the company will share the office action that they have received from the USPTO or EPO and any other supporting material. The strategic partner will go through the Office action responses and prepare a draft strategy to respond to the objections and share that strategy with the patent attorney at the company’s end.
Now, the company patent attorney will review the strategy shared by the strategic partner and may provide his comments or his inputs.
Also, sometimes, the strategic partner and the patent attorney may get into call with each other to discuss the strategy in a better manner and finalize the strategy.
The team at the strategic partner’s end will prepare complete draft of office action response and share that with the patent attorney after the strategy finalization.
Now, patent attorney will review the finalized first draft of the Office Action response and provide his inputs. Based upon those, the Office Action response is finalized.
Now, the entire Office action is finalized, this Office action response is shared with the US or EP based attorney for filing.
Here, you see the effort put by US or EP patent attorney in preparing the responses to the Office action is saved and therefore a lot of cost is saved.
Example ( Model 1 )
We take the 10 patent applications prepared using traditional method of using US and EP based law firms and the model number 1, to give you an idea about the exemplar savings.
Now, we have assumed that on an average, there are two office actions per patent application and used that figure to arrive at the cost.
Now, using Model 1, that is Strategic Partner plus US or EP based law firm. The high priority patents office action responses will be prepared by US or EP based law firms and the cost for preparing both the office actions would be around 3,000 per office action.
So, the total cost comes out to be around 18,000 USD for 3 patent applications. While, the Office Action response cost comes out to be just 9,800 USD for preparing 7 medium to low priority patents. So, the total cost for prosecuting the 10 applications using model 1 comes out to be 27,800 USD. While if you use US or EP law firms completely for preparing the office action responses for all the 10 patent applications, the cost comes out to be around 60,000 USD.
Therefore, you can see there is a considerable amount of saving and we save almost 54% of the cost is if a company uses model number 1 for preparing office action responses.
Hybrid Model 2
Now, moving on to the second model, in this model, instead of working directly with the company based attorney, the strategic partner work with US or EP law firm in conjunction with the patent attorney of the company. Here, strategy for responding to the office action is shared with the patent attorney of the law firm. And, the strategy is finalized based on the feedbacks or comments from the US or EP patent attorney.
Based on the finalized strategy, the strategic partner prepares a complete response and then shares it with the US or EP based law firm. Again, the patent attorney at the law firm side will provide his comments that are incorporated into the Office action response and then finalized.
Then, after finalizing, we share the complete response with the patent attorney of the company where the patent attorney will review and provide his approval or feedback.
And, then again the strategic partner will modify the response accordingly and finalize the objection response if some inputs are received .
Now, the objection response is finalized and the patent attorney of the law firm files it.
Here, again, strategic partner does a lot of office action response preparation work and thereby saves a lot of cost.
Example ( Model 2 )
Now, we are going to compare the cost saved in using only the US based law firm and using this model number 2.
Again, we take an example of 10 patent applications. The US based law firms will prepare 3 high priority patent applications. And, the cost for preparing the response comes out to be around 18,000 USD. While, cost for preparing 7 medium to low priority patents comes out to be around 9,800 USD.
Now, since the US based lawyer firm is reviewing the response prepared by the strategic partner for all 7 applications, that is additional cost which comes around 7,000 dollar.
So, the prosecution of all the 10 patent applications takes a total cost of around 35,000 dollars. While, it costs a total of 60,000 dollars if Asian companies go through only US or EP law firm model.
Therefore, we save a considerable amount. And, if you see, we achieve approximately 42% savings while using a model 2 versus the traditional models.
Now, we are discussing about some best practices and differences between the various English based patent systems and Asia based patent systems.
Best Practices and Differences between the Various English based Patent Systems and Asia based Patent Systems
Use of Product Claims
First, if you see, one of the major things in Japanese Patent Office, European Patent Office is that the use of product claims are allowed and updated as process claims. While the USPTO does not allows the use of product claims.
What I mean by use of product claims is that, for example, something like the use of substance X as an insecticide. EP or Japanese Patent Office allows these types of claims. And, they account as a process claim like a method of killing insect using the substance X at China Patent Office.
While there is no such class at USPTO. And, they are generally known as indefinite. USPTO does not allows them. While, they are known as a product claim in Korean Patent Office. And, the process does not add to any novelty.
Two Part Claims
Similarly, you might have seen the use of two part claims. While, USPTO prefers two part claims. It is not really important at Japanese Patent Office or Korean Patent Office. But, it is mandatory at Chinese Patent Office. However, it should be avoided at USPTO because then it can be argued that your novelty lies of what comes after characterizing that not before the characterizing that.
So, therefore these are some best practices we need to use for preparing patent application for US or English jurisdiction vis-a-vis the Japanese, Korean or Chinese patent application.
Inventive Step Identification
Again, one more thing in some of the European Patent Office or Japanese Patent Office, it is always advantageous to use a problem-solution approach to write the patent application. That is because, according to rules of European Patent Office or Japanese Patent Office, inventive step is only considered when it has a technical solution while it’s not necessary at the US Patent Office.
Mean Plus Function
Similarly, one of the best practices for US Patent Office is do not use mean plus function. Although, USPTO allows them and the description covers the scope of the protection. But as per our practice, we have seen that if you use mean plus function, the Examiner will give you a rejection under 35 USC 112.
Therefore, it is always advisable not to use mean plus function claims. While, European Patent Office, Japanese Patent Office and Korean Patent Office allow Mean plus functions. And, similarly in Chinese Patent Office, they should be avoided.
Multiple Dependent Claims
One of the things that Japanese Patent Office, Korean Patent Office or Chinese Patent Office or even European Patent Office allow is use of multiple dependent claims. They allow and they treat the claims as just one single claim. While, USPTO, generally, allows multiple dependent claims but treat them as multiple claims, so the total overall number of claims will increase and that will add to the overall cost of the patent application.
Therefore, you should avoid multiple dependent claims for US patent applicants.
Again, USPTO does not allows multiple dependent claims. And, while the European Patent Office, Japanese Patent Office allow the same.
So, these are the few things that need to be taken care of while preparing or converting a Japanese or Chinese or Korean patent application in corresponding US patent application or European patent application.
Now, we have discussed so much about what we should do, what we should work with the strategic partner. We have discussed so much about advantages of choosing the strategic partner, but one of the biggest challenges that the Asian companies face is “How to select a strategic partner?”
How to Select a Strategic Partner?
So, here we have divided the selection processes in 2 steps. One is that what is to look for in a strategic partner. Asian company should look that strategic partner has as a team of people who has good knowledge of patent practices in multiple jurisdiction.
They have experienced patent drafter having good experience in drafting US and EP patents, have strong technical background and have a good knowledge of the products, technology, etc and also have some local language capability. So, these things are available.
How an Asian company should finalize the strategic partner?
First of all, to ascertain that, the Asian company can ask for sample patents from the strategic partners that they have drafted and review those sample patents. This gives you a pretty good hang of what kind of style or what kind of drop and how skilful patent drafters are.
And then, to ascertain the technical knowledge of the people, Asian companies can conduct technical interviews and then companies can also ask for some references for which the strategic partner had worked previously and on these models.
Most importantly, to confirm whether the strategic partner will be able to draft patents to the company satisfaction, a pilot can be conducted wherein the company gives 2 or 3 patents for recreation or persecution. And then, they can see what kind of output is coming and they can select that strategic partner if they are satisfied.
Now, we have talked a lot about prioritizing the path. And, so, how to prioritize patent is coming into our next webinar. I think that’s all from my side for today.
Thank you all.
Prateek Mohunta speaking- Thank you Pankaj for the very comprehensive overview of the ways Asian corporations can actually save costs on their US patent preparation and prosecution. You’ve covered a lot of ground. And, I’m sure audience has a lot of questions, so maybe we can take up a few.
Why to Select Strategic Partner for Only Mid to Low Priority Patents?
And, as we move ahead, I invite our listeners to keep sharing their questions as they have during the course of the session. You can go to the Goto Webinar question box and I’ll pick those questions from there. And, I’ll ask our speakers about it.
So Pankaj, you talked about using strategic partner, specifically, for low to mid priority patents. Is there a reason why you suggest so? Is there a reason why strategic partner may not be able to handle high priority patents?
Pankaj Garg speaking- It’s a very good question. It’s not that the strategic partner is not able to handle high priority applications. Based on our experience, we have seen that the Asian companies are generally unsure of the technical and legal systems of the strategic partner initially. And, they are little apprehensive in sharing the valuable patents with the strategic partner or involve the strategic partner in patent preparation and prosecution of the valuable invention.
So, therefore, I suggested that you use US or EP based attorney for high priority patent applications. And, use a strategic partner for low to medium priority application initially. And in fact, if you see in our organization, we started with that.
Now most of our clients are involving us in patent preparation and prosecution of the high priority patent applications.
So, that’s how the apprehensions of the Asian companies can be taken care of initially. And, then when they trust with us, we can compare the high priority applications as well.
Prateek Mohunta speaking– That makes sense. I have an interesting question from the audience, actually.
How to Identify the Priority of Patents?
Is there any specific way that you recommend one can use to identify priority of each application?
Pankaj Garg speaking– Definitely, Prateek. There is a way to identify the priority of the each of the invention. We can do it on the basis of the novelty, business impact, technological relevance and the future technological relevance of the idea.
That’s what I said we are going to discuss the detail of the model in our next webinar. It is titled as “Segregating patents into a priority list and ways to categorize a patent/invention into high, mid or low priority.”
Prateek Mohunta speaking- Right. I think that would be a good opportunity for us to learn more about taking that next step. That is, of categorizing the patent or invention into the different categories. So, everyone in the audience, please stay tuned and for this and do register for that webinar.
Why is Local Language a Critical Parameter For Selecting A Strategic Partner?
Meanwhile, Pankaj, you also mentioned about ability to communicate. And, that local language as being a very critical parameter for selecting the right strategic partner. Why is that so?
Pankaj Garg speaking- Yeah! I mentioned that we need to discuss the invention with the attorney while I was speaking about the hybrid model. And, sometimes it’s the first time of preparing patent application, the nitty-gritty of the entire invention lies with inventor.
So, it becomes imperative to discuss the invention in detail with the inventors. Now, since the inventors may not be that good in speaking English. And, they are probably good and comfortable in discussing the invention in local language. It becomes an important parameter that strategic partner can discuss the invention with the inventors in local language and understand the entire invention.
Otherwise there will be gaps in the patent application.
Prateek Mohunta speaking- Okay, right. That makes a lot of sense. And, so before I actually end this, I would like to ask what are the two things that a strategic partner must have?
Pankaj Garg speaking- Yes. The first thing is that the parent drafters are able to understand the invention. That is because if somebody is not able to understand the invention, he will not be able to draft a good patent application. Right?
And, second thing is, the patent drafter should have a good knowledge of differences between the patent rules. And, also of the best practices of various patent jurisdictions so that we can differentiate from a US based patent application to EP patent application.
I think these are the two most important things that strategic partner must have.
Prateek Mohunta speaking- Alright, thanks, Pankaj for the amazing presentation and also for the question and answer session. It’s actually been a wonderful session. And, I’m sure our listeners have great takeaways from this session. And, they will be able to use several of the points that you have mentioned in their own processes. Also, that they will be able to make specific recommendations to their own departments.
I think we have not been able to cover all the questions that we received from the audience. But, those which we could not cover right now; we will answer in the write ups and will publish post webinar.
We will also like to thank Pankaj. You have been great and really helped us understand this topic and the importance behind it.
And, I also want to extend a big thank you to our listeners. You have helped us start on time and also been such a wonderful audience. We highly appreciate that. And thank you very much.
Meanwhile, if you have any questions, you can drop us an email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Please join us in our next webinar and have a great day ahead.
This is Prateek signing off from this webinar. Thank you, everyone and keep safe. Bye.