> You either need to hire a patent lawyer or be prepared to pay plaintiff's attorney and court costs in the worst case that a patent owner sues you and doesn't

> You either need to hire a patent lawyer or be prepared to pay plaintiff's attorney and court costs in the worst case that a patent owner sues you and doesn't want to make a licensing deal. That isn't what I saw... Being sued by a patent owner, if they are a non-practicing entity, is par for the course, that is often their opening negotiation move. (How do I know you ask? I got sued by one.). The suit is a negotiating tactic to ensure that if you don't settle via negotiation (which is preferred, it is cheaper for the patent owner), the case will force you to. In the case I saw, the non-practicing entity only went after companies that were large enough to get some meaty licensing revenue and they ignored all the small fry. No patent owner that I can think of "doesn't want to make a licensing deal." In fact, it is a legal requirement that patent owners license their tech for a "reasonable fee", although that can mean many different things. > Moderate funding of this risk would be sufficient. If you don't have this initial money but you're confident that you will find certain profit, maybe take a loan? If he has no money now, why invest in patent advice? The patent owner likely won't sue him because you can not get blood from a stone. Making a new company is a crap shoot. His success isn't assured at all. Why pay money now because of a remote possibility in the future? When instead he could just deal with that risk in the future?