It may be an ad but it has every reason to be perfectly accurate. The law firm is not selling LFP batteries.

Edit: for example, if somebody was selling their AWS course by providing detailed information on some aspect of AWS, that wouldn't be a reason to doubt the information itself. It serves as a sample.

▲

IshKebab 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It has plenty of reasons to be inaccurate. They may be exaggerating the promise of LFP or overplaying how many secondary parents there are.

	▲	bluGill 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Anyone who needs their help already knows the promise of LFP in at least enough details that they would need the patent search anyway as part of their efforts to learn if it is right for them. All secondary patents are important, the only question is: do you license them, work around them, or not infringe in the first place. (I'm going to ignore the possibility of intentional infringing though that happens)

▲

lmpdev 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean one would take the ad with a grain of salt

If it gets people to pull the trigger on engaging with the firm - it’s likely to embellish how massive the changes are of these patent lapses