The Rapacke Law Group, P.A.

About The Rapacke Law Group, P.A.

The Rapacke Law Group, P.A. is a patent and trademark practice at 800 W El Camino Real #180 in Mountain View, California. The firm serves inventors, startups, and established businesses across technology-driven sectors, with website-listed industry experience in AI and machine learning, autonomous vehicles, blockchain, computer hardware, consumer electronics, digital health, fintech, medical devices, semiconductors, and software/SaaS. Its core patent work includes software, SaaS, medical device, utility, provisional, and design patents, along with office actions and post-grant proceedings. On the trademark side, the firm handles domestic and international trademarks, office actions, and TTAB opposition and cancellation proceedings.

Beyond filing, The Rapacke Law Group offers startup and business counsel: formation and structure, contracts and agreements, cease-and-desist letters, counsel on demand, FDA regulatory compliance, fundraising agreements, IP licensing, nondisclosure agreements, privacy and data protection, and technology transfer agreements. It also lists patent, trademark, and trade secret litigation, copyright registration, trade secret services, and anti-counterfeiting support. The firm markets a flat-fee approach, a client guarantee, Protect Now, Pay Later options, and a free IP strategy call, plus a learning center with resources, templates, checklists, articles, webinars, and an IP insights newsletter.

With a 4.6 rating across 53 reviews, the firm’s feedback is largely positive. Reviewers frequently describe knowledgeable and responsive attorneys, patient explanations for first-time patent and trademark filers, and clear communication through prosecution. Pricing draws repeated praise, with clients citing straightforward, fair, or flexible fees and transparent service. Many reviews highlight successful outcomes, including granted patents, registered trademarks, prior art searches, provisional filings, design and software patent applications, and assistance negotiating a one-sided supplier agreement. Some clients note that patent timelines were long, attributing delays to USPTO workload rather than the firm.

The firm also has a minority of critical feedback. A few reviews report difficulty reaching the office or a missed scheduled consultation. One detailed review describes poor communication during a time-sensitive patent prosecution, including confusion over USPTO Office Action updates, billing, RCE strategy, and transition handling. Another review criticizes the consultation process after a strategy call was declined following a late start. These accounts are not representative of most reviews, but they identify responsiveness and intake consistency as areas where the firm’s otherwise strong reputation can vary.