🎙 Inventive Journey | Real Stories From the Startup Survival Club

Devin @ Miller IP
  • 5.0 (28)
  • Entrepreneurship
  • Updated Daily

Buckle up for real stories from startup founders and small business heroes who survived the chaos, laughed at the mistakes, and still built something awesome. 🚀 Each episode dives into the wild ride of turning ideas into impact—complete with hard lessons, lucky breaks, and plenty of caffeine. ☕️ Entrepreneurs, this is your pit stop for honest insights and unexpected laughs.

  1. 2d ago

    🔍 How to Tell If Your Product Infringes a Patent

    🔍 How to Tell If Your Product Infringes a Patent You have a product. It works. Customers want it. Manufacturing is warming up. Then somebody asks the question no founder wants to hear five minutes before launch: “Are we infringing a patent?” In this episode, we break down how founders, product teams, manufacturers, and small business owners can think about patent infringement risk before commercialization gets expensive. Patent infringement is not simply a question of whether two products look alike. In the United States, the analysis centers heavily on patent claims—the numbered statements at the end of a patent that define the legal boundaries of the invention. A product can look similar without necessarily infringing, while a product that looks different may still raise concerns depending on the claim language. We start with patent searching. Look beyond the exact words your marketing team uses and search technical terms, synonyms, competitors, inventors, assignees, classifications, and citations. The USPTO’s Patent Public Search is a strong starting point, but one phrase is not a complete search strategy. Next, we explain claim analysis. A serious review breaks a relevant claim into individual limitations and compares them against the product or process, often using a claim chart. That is more useful than saying, “Our product feels different.” Legal status matters. A search result may be an issued patent, pending application, abandoned application, expired right, or one member of a larger family. Related filings can matter too, so finding one document is not the finish line. We also cover the doctrine of equivalents. Avoiding the exact words of a claim does not always eliminate risk. Small substitutions or superficial redesigns may still require analysis. Moving a component and giving it a new nickname does not automatically settle the question. Then we look at freedom to operate, or FTO. A preliminary patent search can be valuable, but it is not the same thing as a formal freedom-to-operate opinion. FTO analysis typically considers the specific product, relevant patent claims, patent status, jurisdictions, and commercialization plans. Because patent rights are territorial, where you manufacture, import, and sell can matter. Timing matters too. Patent diligence is most useful while the product is flexible. Find a concern early and you may redesign, change a process, explore licensing, switch suppliers, or investigate further. Find it after tooling and inventory are committed, and every option tends to cost more. We also clear up several common myths. Owning a patent does not automatically mean you have freedom to operate. A patent generally gives you exclusionary rights; it does not guarantee that your product avoids earlier patents owned by others. Independent invention does not automatically eliminate infringement risk either. You can genuinely create something yourself and still end up within another party’s patent claims. And losing a patent case does not automatically mean you pay the other side’s attorney’s fees. Under U.S. law, fee awards are associated with exceptional cases, while damages and injunctions involve separate legal standards. The lesson is not to fear patents. Treat patent risk like any serious business risk: identify it early, investigate it intelligently, and decide while you still have room to maneuver. This episode is educational, not legal advice. Patent infringement and FTO questions depend on specific claims, products, jurisdictions, and facts. When the stakes are meaningful, patent counsel can help turn uncertainty into a business decision. If you are developing, manufacturing, importing, or selling a product, this episode will help you understand what to look for before launch—and why “we searched for five minutes and found nothing” probably should not be the final slide in your risk-management deck. To chat about this one-on-one, grab a free consult at strategymeeting.com

    🔍 How to Tell If Your Product Infringes a Patent

  2. Aug 7

    💻 How to Type ® on Windows, Mac, iPhone &Android

    The registered trademark symbol looks tiny, but for business owners it carries far more weight than a normal keyboard character. In this episode, we break down how to type the ® symbol on Windows, Mac, iPhone, iPad, and Android, plus the more important question: when are you actually allowed to use it? You’ll learn the most common shortcuts, reliable mobile workarounds, and the difference between ®, ™, and ℠. We also cover one of the most common mistakes founders make: assuming that filing a trademark application means they can immediately start using the registered trademark symbol. It does not. For Windows users, we explain the classic Alt plus 0174 shortcut. On Mac, we cover Option plus R and how Character Viewer can help when keyboard layouts behave differently. For iPhone and iPad users, we look at text replacement as a practical shortcut. On Android, we discuss symbol menus, keyboard differences, and why there is no single shortcut that works perfectly across every device. Then we move beyond typing. A registered trademark symbol is a notice. In the United States, it communicates that the mark has federal registration status. That is different from simply claiming trademark rights. Businesses can often use ™ or ℠ before registration, but ® should be reserved for marks that are actually registered. We also discuss why “registered” does not mean “I own this word everywhere.” Trademark rights are connected to a specific mark and specific goods or services. A software company with a registered name does not automatically control that same word in every unrelated category. Context and scope matter. Another practical question is whether ® needs to appear after every mention of a brand. Usually, that is not the best approach. Repeating the symbol constantly can make clean marketing copy look like it caught a case of legal punctuation. A better strategy is to create brand guidelines explaining where the symbol should appear, how the mark should be written, and which logo versions are approved. That matters because trademark use is not just a legal-team issue. Marketing, sales, product, design, web development, agencies, distributors, and vendors may all touch the brand. If each group handles trademark notices differently, inconsistency spreads fast. We also explore business hazards, including using ® before registration, assuming one registration covers every product or service, failing to track registration maintenance, and believing that the symbol itself somehow enforces the brand. Spoiler: it does not. A trademark symbol can communicate rights, but it cannot monitor competitors, renew registrations, update packaging, fix old website files, or send a thoughtfully stern letter on your behalf. Brand protection still requires strategy, process, and judgment. The episode also tackles several trademark myths. No, a pending application does not equal registration. No, registering a mark does not grant universal ownership of a word. No, you usually do not need ® after every occurrence. And no, inaccurate use should not be treated as a harmless branding shortcut. For founders and small business owners, the real lesson is bigger than memorizing Alt plus 0174 or Option plus R. Trademarks are business assets. They can influence branding, marketing, licensing, expansion, investor diligence, acquisitions, and competitive positioning. Trademark decisions belong inside a broader intellectual property strategy. If your company has a valuable name, logo, slogan, product identity, or service brand, this episode gives you a practical framework for understanding what the registered trademark symbol means and how to use it more intelligently. You’ll leave knowing the shortcuts, the distinctions, the common mistakes, and the bigger strategic questions to ask before your team starts dropping ® into every deck, webpage, and piece of packaging it can find. To chat about this one-on-one, grab a free consult at strategymeeting.com

    💻 How to Type ® on Windows, Mac, iPhone &Android

  3. Jul 29

    📞 From Cold Calls to Remote Leverage: Abbas Mohammed’s Startup Scaling Playbook

    In this episode of The Inventive Journey, Devin Miller talks with Abbas Mohammed about cold calls, persistence, remote hiring, AI, and business focus that keeps founders from becoming full-time firefighters with laptops. Abbas’s story starts at 19, when he dropped out of college to pursue real estate. That decision sounds bold in hindsight, but it came with the classic startup starter pack: uncertainty, long hours, rejection, and a calendar that probably needed medical attention. He spent about a year making calls, working long days, and pushing through before landing his first real transaction. That first win opened the door to growth. Abbas began scaling his real estate business by hiring virtual assistants, eventually growing a larger team of cold callers. By increasing outreach capacity, he multiplied activity without personally doing every single task. That helped him grow substantially and become one of the top RE-MAX agents at a young age. But real estate also exposed a limitation: geography. Abbas saw that his growth was tied to local markets and location-based constraints. That realization pushed him toward a new opportunity. He started Remote Leverage, first as a cold calling agency for real estate agents, then pivoted into a recruiting model focused on helping businesses hire Latin American virtual assistants and skilled remote talent. The Remote Leverage model focuses on direct hiring rather than a traditional staffing-agency structure. Abbas explains how this gives small businesses access to capable remote workers while keeping costs lower than many local hiring options. He also highlights why Latin American talent can be attractive for U.S. businesses: similar time zones, strong communication, and collaboration during normal business hours. A major theme is quality. Abbas is not arguing that founders should hire the cheapest possible help. His point is that the right remote talent can create leverage when the business has clear roles, expectations, and systems. Cheap support without structure can become expensive confusion. Good support with clear direction can become a growth engine. Devin and Abbas also discuss AI and its impact on virtual assistants. Abbas shares that AI has helped his company increase productivity and revenue, but he does not view AI as a complete replacement for human talent. Instead, AI changes the nature of the work by supporting research, summaries, workflows, and faster execution. Human judgment, communication, accountability, and problem-solving still matter. The episode also explores business decision-making. Abbas talks about testing ideas, learning from failed experiments, and recognizing when client expectations do not match reality. One lesson involved marketing ROI timelines. Clients sometimes expected results faster than Abbas anticipated. That kind of lesson is painfully useful, which is entrepreneur-speak for “we learned it after the invoice was already emotionally complicated.” Near the end, Abbas shares one of his clearest rules of thumb for founders: focus on the bottleneck. Many entrepreneurs chase too many initiatives at once. They add products, tools, campaigns, hires, and meetings without first identifying the one constraint most limiting growth. Abbas recommends finding that bottleneck and solving it before scattering attention across everything else. For startup founders and small business owners, this episode offers a practical scaling playbook: talk to the market, do the hard work early, delegate repeatable tasks, hire for quality, use AI as a productivity multiplier, and keep asking what is actually holding the business back. Abbas Mohammed’s journey from cold calls to Remote Leverage is a reminder that business growth is rarely about one magic tactic. It is about learning the work, creating leverage, adapting the model, and refusing to let the founder become the bottleneck. To chat about this one-on-one, grab a free consult at strategymeeting.com

    📞 From Cold Calls to Remote Leverage: Abbas Mohammed’s Startup Scaling Playbook

  4. Jul 26

    ⏰ How Often Must You Renew a Trademark?

    A trademark can become one of the most valuable assets a business owns. It may represent reputation, customer trust, market recognition. But registration is not the end of the process. To keep it active, the owner must meet maintenance deadlines, continue using the mark properly, and ensure the official record reflects the real business. In this episode, we explain how often trademarks must be renewed, why the answer depends on the jurisdiction, and which deadlines owners often miss. In the United States, federal trademark registrations generally follow a ten-year renewal cycle. However, there is a critical maintenance filing due between the fifth and sixth anniversaries of registration. This filing confirms that the mark is still being used for the goods or services listed in the registration. A business cannot simply circle the tenth anniversary on a calendar and ignore everything in between. Missing the fifth-to-sixth-year filing can cause the registration to be canceled before the first renewal deadline arrives. Between the ninth and tenth anniversaries, the owner generally files a combined Section Eight and Section Nine submission. The Section Eight portion confirms continued use, while the Section Nine portion renews the registration for another ten-year term. After that, the process repeats every ten years. We also examine international schedules. The European Union, Canada, Australia, and registrations managed through the Madrid System generally use ten-year renewal periods. Even when the cycle is similar, filing windows, fees, evidence requirements, and grace periods can differ. One important correction for anyone relying on older articles: Canadian trademark renewals are now generally handled in ten-year periods, not fifteen-year periods. Outdated information can create expensive planning mistakes for global portfolios. This episode explains why renewal should be treated as a brand audit rather than a routine payment. Before filing, the owner should confirm the legal owner, review the listed goods and services, collect current evidence of use, verify licensing relationships, and identify products or services that are no longer sold. We discuss common hazards, including filing under the wrong business entity, claiming use for discontinued goods, relying too heavily on grace periods, paying misleading private notices, and overlooking related international registrations. A trademark can potentially remain protected indefinitely. A registration may continue through repeated renewal periods as long as the owner meets the legal requirements and the mark keeps functioning as a source identifier. The episode covers a practical maintenance process. Start with the official registration date. Record every filing window and grace period. Assign responsibility to a specific person or team. Save prior submissions and specimens. Review ownership after mergers, conversions, or acquisitions. Build reminders early enough to solve problems before the deadline becomes an emergency. For starup founders and small business owners, this matters because a missed renewal can affect far more than a certificate. It can complicate licensing, fundraising, franchising, enforcement, due diligence, acquisitions, and expansion. A lapse may also create opportunities for competitors and increase the cost of rebuilding protection. The central takeaway is simple: in many major jurisdictions, trademarks generally renew every ten years, but U.S. owners must also remember the filing between years five and six. A strong brand deserves more than a sticky note and good intentions. It deserves a reliable maintenance system. Listen to learn how trademark renewal works, which deadlines matter most, and how to keep a valuable brand from becoming an avoidable legal problem. To chat about this one-on-one, grab a free consult at strategymeeting.com

    ⏰ How Often Must You Renew a Trademark?

  5. Jul 22

    🔐 From Meal Kits to Mobile Security: Sergey Korolev’s Startup Pivot Nobody Saw Coming

    In this episode of The Inventive Journey, Devin Miller interviews Sergey Korolev about a founder path that refuses to stay in one lane. Sergey’s story begins with robotics engineering at Bauman Technical University in Moscow, includes competitive water polo, moves into enterprise automation, and then grows into Just Food, a meal kit and delivery business that reached roughly $10 million in annual revenue over about six years. Just Food was not a cute side project with a logo and three inspirational quotes taped to a wall. It was a real operating business with logistics, customer expectations, influencer marketing, engineering demands, and the daily joy of discovering that food delivery is simple only when someone else is doing it. Sergey and his team grew the company in Russia’s health and fitness market, learning how to build systems, manage pressure, and turn a real customer need into a scaling company. Then the environment changed. Sergey explains how geopolitical constraints made it difficult to build the kind of global company he wanted from Russia. He eventually moved to Portugal and stepped away from running the food tech company. That transition forced a bigger founder question: after building one successful company, what comes next? Sergey did not want to simply recreate the same model in a different wrapper. He wanted a company that could be global from the beginning, a category with meaningful technical depth, and an engineering partner who could bring serious domain expertise. That search led him into mobile application security and to the creation of Oversecured. Oversecured helps enterprises find vulnerabilities in mobile applications. The company focuses on a problem that is becoming harder for businesses to ignore. Mobile apps are not just tiny brand brochures anymore. They handle authentication, payments, private data, location, workflows, and connections to backend systems. When mobile security is treated as an afterthought, the risks can become very real, very fast, and very unpleasant for everyone except the attacker. In the conversation, Sergey also shares one of his toughest founder lessons: underestimating emotions in negotiations. Founders often want to believe that business conflict is rational because there are contracts, spreadsheets, and people using phrases like “alignment.” But negotiations are full of pride, fear, trust, control, timing, and incentives. Ignoring the emotional side can turn a business disagreement into an expensive lesson with legal paperwork attached. Sergey’s advice to founders is memorable: act more and think less. The point is not to be careless. The point is to stop mistaking private overthinking for progress. Startups learn by testing, selling, shipping, listening, and adapting. A founder who takes action creates feedback. A founder who only plans creates prettier uncertainty. This episode is especially useful for startup founders and small business owners thinking about pivots, market constraints, cofounder selection, enterprise sales, or how to build after a previous chapter ends. Sergey’s journey shows that a pivot is not automatically a failure. Sometimes it is the most honest response to what the market, the world, and your own ambition are telling you. Listen for a conversation about reinvention, global company-building, cybersecurity, zero-day vulnerabilities, negotiation mistakes, and why the founder path often looks obvious only after you have already survived it. You will also hear how Sergey approached the zero-to-one stage differently the second time around. His criteria were clearer: build with the right technical partner, avoid regional limitations, and choose a market where deep expertise could become a durable advantage. That is useful perspective for any founder who has outgrown one chapter but has not yet named the next one. To chat about this one-on-one, grab a free consult at strategymeeting.com

    🔐 From Meal Kits to Mobile Security: Sergey Korolev’s Startup Pivot Nobody Saw Coming

  6. Jul 15

    💡 What Startups Can Learn From an Engineer-Turned-Fund Manager

    In this Inventive Journey episode, Devin Miller talks with Justin Roopnarine about a career path that moved from electrical engineering to software, from the Air Force to finance, and eventually into fund management. It is the kind of founder journey that proves entrepreneurship rarely follows a clean straight line. Sometimes the useful path looks more like a wiring diagram, a flight plan, and an investment thesis walking into the same room. Justin’s story gives founders a practical look at how different disciplines can compound. Engineering taught him how to break problems apart, study systems, and solve for constraints. The Air Force added structure, responsibility, mission focus, and the ability to operate under pressure. Finance added a respect for uncertainty, risk, and the reality that a smart thesis still needs disciplined execution. One of the biggest lessons from the conversation is that founders need to make ideas concrete. It is not enough to have a brilliant concept living rent-free inside your head. Your team cannot execute what they cannot understand. Your customers cannot buy what they cannot explain. Your investors cannot support a thesis that sounds like it was assembled during a caffeine emergency. Clarity is not cosmetic. It is infrastructure. This episode also explores why risk management matters for every startup, not just finance companies. Founders take risks constantly: hiring, product development, marketing, fundraising, partnerships, pricing, legal protection, and customer promises. The question is not whether risk exists. The question is whether the founder knows which risks are being taken, how large they are, and what the company will learn from them. Otherwise, “moving fast” can become a very expensive way to collect avoidable mistakes. Justin’s fund-management perspective is especially useful for entrepreneurs because it reframes risk as something to design rather than fear. Smart operators do not avoid every uncertain move. They size the bet, define the hypothesis, track the outcome, and keep the business alive long enough to learn. That mindset applies whether you are managing capital, launching a product, or deciding whether one loud prospect’s feature request deserves three months of engineering time. Devin and Justin also discuss the human side of building. Founder time is limited, attention is limited, and personal bandwidth is not a magical renewable resource that appears after the next funding round. Justin’s emphasis on protecting important personal commitments is a useful reminder that sustainability is not separate from performance. A founder who burns out does not become more strategic. They just become a bottleneck with calendar invites. The conversation is especially helpful for startup founders, small business owners, emerging fund managers, technical founders, veteran entrepreneurs, and anyone trying to turn complex expertise into a business others can understand. It is also a strong reminder that your unusual background may be one of your biggest advantages. The point is not to have a perfect resume. The point is to build a skill stack that helps you see problems differently and act with discipline. Listeners will walk away with practical lessons on simplifying complex ideas, documenting assumptions, managing downside risk, building clearer operating systems, and protecting the time needed to make better decisions. They will also hear why the founder’s job is not merely to be the smartest person in the room. It is to make the room smarter by communicating clearly enough that everyone can move in the same direction. If you are building a startup and your strategy currently exists only in your head, this episode may gently tap you on the shoulder with a whiteboard marker. Write it down. Simplify it. Test it. Share it. Then build systems that let the business grow beyond founder translation. To chat about this one-on-one, grab a free consult at strategymeeting.com

    💡 What Startups Can Learn From an Engineer-Turned-Fund Manager

  7. Jul 8

    💇 How to Patent a Hair Product the Smart Way

    A new hair product can feel like magic in a bottle, but the business side needs more than hope, foam, and a confident launch post. This episode-style breakdown explores how founders can think about patenting a hair product the smart way, especially when the invention includes a formula, applicator, treatment method, packaging feature, device, or manufacturing process. The big idea is simple: a patent does not protect the vague dream of “better hair care.” It protects a specific technical invention. That distinction matters. A founder may have a product customers love, but the patent question is whether the invention is new, useful, and non-obvious compared with what already exists. In other words, the market may clap, but the patent examiner still wants receipts. We cover why the first step is identifying the real invention. Is the product a unique composition? Does it stabilize an active ingredient? Does it reduce breakage in a measurable way? Does it deliver treatment to the scalp differently? Does the applicator control dosing, movement, or coverage better than existing tools? The more clearly the invention is defined, the better the strategy becomes. We also look at prior art searches, which are less glamorous than packaging design but far more useful when copycats appear. Prior art can include patents, published applications, scientific articles, product disclosures, competitor materials, and technical references. Searching early helps founders avoid expensive surprises and refine what they should actually claim. The conversation also compares patents with trade secrets. A patent can create exclusionary rights, but it requires disclosure. A trade secret can protect valuable know-how, but only if the information stays secret. For hair products, the best answer may depend on whether competitors can reverse engineer the formula, whether the key advantage lives in the manufacturing process, and whether confidential information is properly controlled. We also discuss common hazards: launching before filing, sharing samples without confidentiality, assuming trendy ingredients are automatically patentable, ignoring ownership with chemists or manufacturers, and filing claims that are either too narrow to matter or too broad to survive. Beauty founders have enough chaos without turning intellectual property into a legal detangling brush. Layered protection matters too. A patent may cover the technical invention, but trademarks can protect the brand name, copyrights can protect original marketing materials, and contracts can help control confidential information shared with labs, vendors, retailers, influencers, and partners. No single tool protects the entire business. A founder needs the legal equivalent of a good hair-care routine: more than one product, used in the right order, before things get tangled. The episode also explains why documentation matters. Formula versions, testing data, prototype photos, lab notes, supplier communications, and dates can help show how the product developed. Those records may also clarify who contributed what, which is especially important when outside chemists, manufacturers, or consultants are involved. Ownership confusion is not charming. It is expensive. For startup founders, beauty entrepreneurs, product developers, salon innovators, and small business owners, this is a practical guide to protecting the invention before the market gets frizzy. The smartest founders do not wait until the product is already copied. They evaluate protection before the launch, before the pitch, and before the suspiciously similar competitor shows up with a bottle that looks like it borrowed your homework. To chat about this one-on-one, grab a free consult at strategymeeting.com

    💇 How to Patent a Hair Product the Smart Way

  8. Jul 7

    🌍 Why International Patents Do Not Exist

    Can you get an international patent? Not exactly, and that surprise has caused more founder confusion than a cap table spreadsheet named “final-final-real-version.” This episode breaks down why there is no single worldwide patent and why that matters for inventors, startups, and small business owners. Patents are territorial. A patent granted in one country generally protects rights in that country, not everywhere your product might be sold, copied, manufactured, licensed, or admired by competitors with suspiciously good timing. The episode explains the Patent Cooperation Treaty, commonly called the PCT, in plain business language. A PCT application is often called an international patent application, but it does not grant international patent protection. Instead, it gives applicants a centralized filing route and more time to decide where they want to pursue patents later. It is a strategy tool, not a worldwide force field. Listeners will learn why the PCT can be valuable for startups that are still testing markets, raising capital, choosing manufacturing partners, or deciding where competitors are most likely to appear. That extra time can be useful, especially when the company is still figuring out whether “global expansion” means Europe, Asia, or just finally shipping outside Utah. We also cover national phase decisions, which are where the real country-by-country choices happen. Eventually, founders must choose jurisdictions, pay filing fees, handle translations where needed, work with local patent professionals, and respond to patent offices that may each see the invention differently. One examiner may nod approvingly. Another may treat your claims like they personally offended breakfast. The conversation also highlights why filing everywhere is usually not the smartest default. International patent protection can get expensive fast. Filing fees, attorney fees, translations, maintenance fees, and enforcement costs can pile up. A bigger filing map is not automatically a better business strategy. At the same time, filing too narrowly can create risk. If a company ignores key sales markets, manufacturing countries, competitor hubs, or licensing territories, it may lose leverage later. The goal is not to chase every country. The goal is to identify the countries where patent rights support revenue, partnerships, investment, manufacturing control, or competitive defense. This episode also looks at common myths. A PCT application is not a worldwide patent. A domestic patent does not automatically stop foreign copying. A patent portfolio should not be built like a souvenir collection. And no, public disclosure is not made safe by adding “do not steal” to a slide deck. Founders will walk away with a clearer way to think about international patent strategy. Start with the business model. Identify where the invention will be sold, made, licensed, challenged, or copied. Then decide whether a PCT application, direct foreign filings, regional filings, or a focused domestic approach makes the most sense. The key lesson is simple: international patents do not exist, but international patent strategy absolutely does. That strategy can help protect market opportunities, support investor conversations, increase licensing value, and reduce expensive mistakes. If you are building something with cross-border potential, this episode will help you understand the difference between patent mythology and practical planning. Bring your invention, your market assumptions, and your budget spreadsheet. Leave the imaginary worldwide patent at home, preferably next to the imaginary unlimited legal budget. The founders who win tend to make informed, selective, deadline-aware choices before launches, pitches, demos, manufacturing deals, and licensing talks create problems that are much harder to fix. To chat about this one-on-one, grab a free consult at strategymeeting.com

    🌍 Why International Patents Do Not Exist
See All (789)

5
out of 5
28 Ratings

About

Buckle up for real stories from startup founders and small business heroes who survived the chaos, laughed at the mistakes, and still built something awesome. 🚀 Each episode dives into the wild ride of turning ideas into impact—complete with hard lessons, lucky breaks, and plenty of caffeine. ☕️ Entrepreneurs, this is your pit stop for honest insights and unexpected laughs.

Information