ClaimHour

Fee petition mechanics · Updated June 2026

Intellectual property attorney fee petition mechanics: USPTO patent prosecution and office action advisory call cycle, PTAB IPR/PGR institution decision and scheduling order call cycle, and 35 U.S.C. § 285/15 U.S.C. § 1117 exceptional case fee petition documentation

IP solos billing hourly on patent prosecution, trademark registration, PTAB inter partes review, and IP litigation fee petitions under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Octane Fitness LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545 (2014) exceptional case standard), 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) (Lanham Act exceptional case and enhanced damages), and 17 U.S.C. § 505 (Copyright Act discretionary fee — Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994) equal-treatment / Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 579 U.S. 197 (2016) objective-reasonableness) — whose fee petitions must be documented from the USPTO application filing date through the final judgment date covering advisory calls triggered by the USPTO examination timeline, the PTAB IPR/PGR scheduling calendar, and the district court's judgment and fee briefing calendar outside counsel's control — generate three billing gaps: USPTO patent prosecution and office action advisory calls arriving when the USPTO mails office actions on the examiner's docketing calendar (6 clients × 3 calls × 46 min × 55% untracked ≈ 7.59 hrs = $2,277–$3,795/year at $300–$500/hr), PTAB IPR/PGR institution decision and scheduling order advisory calls arriving when the PTAB issues its institution decision and scheduling order on the PTAB's calendar (5 clients × 3 calls × 48 min × 55% untracked ≈ 6.6 hrs = $1,980–$3,300/year), and 35 U.S.C. § 285/15 U.S.C. § 1117/17 U.S.C. § 505 fee petition advisory calls arriving when the district court enters judgment and sets the fee briefing schedule on the court's post-judgment calendar (4 clients × 3 calls × 52 min × 55% ≈ 5.72 hrs = $1,716–$2,860/year). For a solo IP practice, the annual billing gap from advisory call underlogging is $5,973–$9,955.

TL;DR

ClaimHour captures every USPTO prosecution advisory call that arrives when the USPTO mails an office action and the 3-month statutory response period begins running on the USPTO's mailing-date calendar, every PTAB IPR/PGR advisory call that arrives when the PTAB issues its institution decision and scheduling order on the PTAB's calendar, and every § 285/§ 1117/§ 505 fee petition advisory call that arrives when the district court enters judgment and sets the fee briefing schedule on the court's post-judgment calendar — passively, no timer, no audio, no call contents. $29–$59/mo. No PMS required.

USPTO patent prosecution and office action advisory: calls on the USPTO examination timeline

USPTO patent examination proceeds on the examiner's own docketing schedule within the USPTO's art unit — a calendar controlled entirely by the USPTO's pendency metrics, the examiner's case count, and the USPTO's biweekly paycheck-issuance schedule for office actions. After a non-provisional application is filed, the USPTO takes 12–36 months to issue a first office action depending on the art unit (electrical/computer art units: 18–30 months; mechanical art units: 12–18 months; chemical/biotech art units: 22–36 months). The attorney cannot predict or control when the USPTO will issue an office action, but the 3-month non-extendable statutory response deadline under 35 U.S.C. § 133 runs from the mailing date — not from any billing calendar the attorney establishes at engagement.

Three USPTO patent prosecution and office action advisory call types that arrive on the USPTO examination timeline: (1) patent application status, global filing deadline, and Alice § 101 advisory — arrives when the USPTO issues the filing receipt assigning the serial number and filing date (tracked in USPTO Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) / Patent Center as the primary Welch anchor), requiring monitoring of the Paris Convention priority period (12 months from the earliest foreign application filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a) and Paris Convention Art. 4 — missing this deadline forfeits foreign priority and the right to claim the earlier filing date in foreign PCT national phase entries), assessment of the PCT international filing deadline (12 months from the priority date for PCT filing to obtain the benefit of the priority filing date in all PCT member states — 153 countries as of 2026), analysis of the Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) two-step § 101 subject matter eligibility framework for any software, business method, or diagnostic claims (Alice Step 1: is the claim directed to an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Alice Step 2: if yes, does the claim recite additional elements that amount to 'significantly more' than the abstract idea alone — a practical application that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention?), application of the USPTO January 2019 Revised Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (the Revised Guidance created a structured three-prong analysis under Alice Step 2A (Prong 1: does the claim recite a judicial exception? Prong 2: if yes, is the exception integrated into a practical application?)), and determination of any accelerated examination options — USPTO Track One (37 C.F.R. § 1.102(e): first office action within 3 months, final disposition within 12 months, for additional fee of $4,000 for large entity / $2,000 for small entity / $1,000 for micro entity) — (44–50 min); (2) first office action response and § 102/§ 103 prior art advisory — arrives when the USPTO mails the first non-final office action (FNOFA) on the examiner's biweekly mailing schedule, triggering the 3-month non-extendable response period (with up to 3 months of paid extensions under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) — each month of extension costs: $230 for micro entity / $575 for small entity / $1,150 for large entity as of 2026 fee schedule), requiring analysis of each § 102 prior art anticipation rejection (a single prior art reference must disclose every element of the claim as arranged in the claim under In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705 (Fed. Cir. 1990)), assessment of each § 103 obviousness rejection under the Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) four-factor framework (scope and content of the prior art, differences between prior art and the claims, level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and objective indicia of non-obviousness) as modified by KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (the analysis requires no rigid teaching-suggestion-motivation nexus; instead, the court asks whether a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of the references at the time of the invention), preparation of the Response to Office Action with claim amendments and remarks distinguishing the prior art, evaluation of whether an Amendment After Final (AAF) under 37 C.F.R. § 1.116 and/or an After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 (AFCP 2.0) response is viable after a final rejection, and assessment of an Examiner Interview under 37 C.F.R. § 1.133 to resolve outstanding claim scope disagreements before the 3-month response deadline — (44–50 min); (3) final rejection, RCE, and PTAB ex parte appeal advisory — arrives when the USPTO mails a final rejection on the examiner's biweekly schedule, triggering the choice between filing a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114 (paying the RCE fee reopens prosecution as if no final rejection had been mailed — the RCE is appropriate when targeted claim amendments can overcome the rejection without appeal) and filing a Notice of Appeal to the PTAB under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 41.31 (the Notice of Appeal must be filed within 2 months of the final rejection; the Appeal Brief is due 2 months after the Notice of Appeal under § 41.37), requiring analysis of the strength of the appeal arguments vs. the likelihood of examiner allowance after RCE, assessment of the § 101 Alice eligibility arguments under the 2019 USPTO Revised Guidance for PTAB ex parte appeal (the PTAB applies the Revised Guidance's three-prong analysis, not just the two-step Alice framework), and analysis of the Examiner's Answer to the Appeal Brief and whether to file a Reply Brief within 2 months of the Examiner's Answer under § 41.41 — (44–50 min). At 55% untracked: 6 clients × 3 calls × 46 min × 55% = 455.4 min / 60 = 7.59 hours = $2,277–$3,795/year at $300–$500/hr.

PTAB IPR/PGR institution decision and scheduling order advisory: calls on the PTAB's scheduling calendar

PTAB inter partes review (IPR) proceedings under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings under 35 U.S.C. §§ 321–329 are governed by the PTAB's own scheduling calendar — a calendar controlled by the PTAB's statutory institution deadline (3 months after the patent owner's preliminary response or after the response due date if no response is filed), the PTAB's scheduling order issued at institution, and the PTAB's 1-year statutory deadline for a final written decision under § 316(a)(11). The patent owner's attorney must respond to the petition and prepare the Patent Owner Response on deadlines set entirely by the PTAB's calendar — deadlines that arrive independently of any billing schedule established when the client retains IP counsel.

Three PTAB IPR/PGR institution decision and scheduling order advisory call types that arrive on the PTAB's scheduling calendar: (1) IPR petition service and Patent Owner Preliminary Response advisory — arrives when the patent owner is served with the IPR petition by the petitioner on the same day as filing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.106(a) — triggering the 3-month window to file the Patent Owner Preliminary Response (POPR) under § 42.107, requiring analysis of the petition's prior art grounds (each § 102 anticipation ground and § 103 obviousness ground must be assessed under BRI claim construction for IPR purposes — the Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) claim construction standard applies to IPRs for issued patents (after the USPTO and courts harmonized construction standards — Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) and the subsequent 2018 claim construction rules change at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)), assessment of the SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348 (2018) 'all-or-nothing' institution requirement (the PTAB must institute on all challenged claims and all grounds raised in the petition, or deny the petition entirely — partial institution is no longer available), evaluation of the Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc. (2020 PTAB precedential decision) discretionary denial factors (likelihood that the district court will resolve the validity question before the PTAB's final written decision, investment in the parallel district court proceeding, the overlap between the IPR petition's claims and the claims asserted in the district court action, whether the petitioner is a party in the district court action, the identicalness of the issues in the two proceedings, and other circumstances that impact the PTAB's ability to consider the merits), and preparation of the POPR arguing for discretionary denial under Fintiv or addressing the merits of each ground directly — (46–52 min)); (2) PTAB institution decision and scheduling order advisory — arrives when the PTAB issues its institution decision under § 314(a) (the institution decision must be issued within 3 months of the due date for the POPR under § 314(b)) — and simultaneously serves the scheduling order setting deadlines for all subsequent PTAB proceedings (Patent Owner Response typically due 3 months after institution; Petitioner's Reply due 1 month after Patent Owner Response; Patent Owner Surreply due 1 month after Petitioner's Reply; oral argument scheduling window), requiring analysis of the PTAB's institution rationale (the PTAB must now issue a written institution decision explaining the basis for institution for each ground — the institution decision frames the issues for the Patent Owner Response and establishes which claim construction positions the PTAB panel has preliminarily adopted), identification of any Real Party in Interest (RPI) or privity challenges under § 315(b) (if an undisclosed RPI was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent more than 1 year before the petition date, the petition must be denied as time-barred — the patent owner's attorney should investigate whether any undisclosed RPIs or parties in privity with the petitioner were served with an infringement complaint before the 1-year bar date), preparation of the Patent Owner Response within the PTAB scheduling order deadline with new evidence (inventor declarations under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132, technical expert declarations, and secondary-consideration evidence under Graham v. John Deere's fourth factor), and assessment of any § 315(c) joinder motion filed by a third party seeking to join the instituted IPR — (46–52 min)); (3) Patent Owner Response, Petitioner's Reply, and oral argument advisory — arrives when the PTAB scheduling order sets the Patent Owner Response deadline, the Petitioner's Reply deadline, and the oral argument scheduling window — requiring preparation of the Patent Owner Response with technical expert declarations addressing each instituted ground's claim construction and obviousness analysis (the Patent Owner Response must address every instituted ground or waive the right to argue it during the trial phase and at appeal under In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), preparation for Petitioner's cross-examination of the patent owner's declarants under 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii) (cross-examination of declarants is routine discovery in PTAB proceedings — the deposition is noticed by the Petitioner and must be completed before the Petitioner's Reply deadline), preparation for oral argument (37 C.F.R. § 42.70: oral argument is 30 minutes per side before a panel of 3 Administrative Patent Judges — the patent owner argues first and may reserve rebuttal time), assessment of Federal Circuit appeal strategy under 35 U.S.C. § 319 if the PTAB issues an adverse final written decision (the patent owner may appeal the final written decision to the Federal Circuit within 63 days of the decision under 37 C.F.R. § 90.3(a)(1)), and documentation of the IPR petition filing date as the second Welch temporal anchor for the billing period — (46–52 min). At 55% untracked: 5 clients × 3 calls × 48 min × 55% = 396 min / 60 = 6.6 hours = $1,980–$3,300/year at $300–$500/hr.

35 U.S.C. § 285/15 U.S.C. § 1117/17 U.S.C. § 505 IP fee petition advisory: calls on the district court's judgment and fee briefing calendar

IP fee petition advisory calls under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (patent exceptional case), 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) (Lanham Act trademark), and 17 U.S.C. § 505 (copyright) arrive on a timeline set by the district court's post-judgment briefing schedule — a schedule set by the court's local rules and the court's specific order following judgment. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B), a motion for attorney's fees must be filed within 14 days of entry of judgment unless the court orders otherwise. Most district courts order expedited briefing on IP fee petitions, with opposition briefs due 14–21 days after the motion and reply briefs due 7–14 days after the opposition. Advisory calls arrive at each post-judgment milestone on a timeline the attorney cannot predict at the time the initial complaint is filed.

Three IP fee petition advisory call types that arrive on the district court's judgment and fee briefing calendar: (1) § 285 exceptional case fee petition and Octane Fitness totality-of-circumstances advisory — arrives when the district court enters judgment in the patent case and the prevailing party must assess the § 285 fee petition grounds within the 14-day FRCP 54(d)(2)(B) window — requiring analysis of the Octane Fitness totality-of-circumstances standard (Octane Fitness, 572 U.S. 545 (2014): an exceptional case under § 285 is simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating position or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated — neither 'objectively baseless' assertion nor subjective bad faith is required under Octane Fitness; either a weak legal/factual position or unreasonable litigation conduct is sufficient), documentation of the specific instances of exceptionality (claim construction arguments that contradicted the patent's intrinsic record; infringement contentions served on non-infringing products; refusal to provide substantive invalidity contentions; prolonging discovery on defenses abandoned before trial), calculation of the § 285 lodestar from the USPTO application filing date (first Welch anchor) through the final judgment date (third anchor) with phase-by-phase billing records supporting each litigation phase's hours, identification of any PTAB IPR phase hours to be included in the lodestar for time spent defending the patent's validity during parallel IPR proceedings (the Federal Circuit has held that IPR-phase fees are recoverable under § 285 when the IPR was instituted as a direct result of the defendant's invalidity defenses in the district court litigation), and assessment of the Highmark abuse-of-discretion standard of review applicable to § 285 fee awards (Highmark, 572 U.S. 559 (2014): all aspects of the § 285 fee determination are reviewed for abuse of discretion — the determination is not de novo, which means a well-documented § 285 fee petition is unlikely to be reversed on appeal if the district court's findings have evidentiary support) — (50–56 min)); (2) § 1117 Lanham Act willful infringement, enhanced damages, and counterfeit goods advisory — arrives when the district court enters judgment in the trademark infringement action and the plaintiff assesses the § 1117 fee and enhanced damage grounds — requiring analysis of § 1117(a)'s three-part remedy structure (1. defendant's profits from the infringing use; 2. plaintiff's actual damages; 3. costs of the action — each subject to equitable modification, but plaintiff may receive no less than actual damages unless the court finds equitable reasons for a lesser award), assessment of willfulness for the § 1117(b) statutory damages election for counterfeit goods ($1,000–$200,000 per mark per type of goods for non-willful counterfeiting; up to $2 million per mark per type of goods for willful counterfeiting under § 1117(c)), application of the SunEarth totality-of-circumstances exceptional case standard for § 1117(a) attorney's fees (SunEarth, Inc. v. Sun Earth Solar Power Co., 839 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc): the 9th Circuit adopted the Octane Fitness standard for Lanham Act attorney's fees — a case is exceptional when it stands out from others in the strength of the litigating position or the unreasonable manner of litigation), identification of the trademark registration date in USPTO TSDR (first Welch anchor), the date the defendant's infringing use commenced (second anchor — establishing the damages window under § 1117(a)), and the judgment date (third anchor), and assessment of the eBay four-factor permanent injunction standard for trademark cases — (50–56 min)); (3) § 505 copyright fee petition, Kirtsaeng objective-reasonableness, and § 412 registration prerequisite advisory — arrives when the district court enters judgment in the copyright infringement action and the prevailing party assesses the § 505 fee petition grounds — requiring analysis of the threshold § 412 registration prerequisite (17 U.S.C. § 412: a copyright owner is barred from recovering statutory damages and attorney's fees under § 505 for any infringement commenced before the effective date of registration unless the registration was made within 3 months after first publication — failure to register before infringement commences, or to register within the 3-month grace period after first publication, bars § 505 fee recovery for the pre-registration infringement period), application of the Kirtsaeng objective-reasonableness factors (579 U.S. 197 (2016): courts must give 'significant weight' to the objective reasonableness of the losing party's legal and factual arguments — a defendant who made a reasonable fair use argument, even if unsuccessful, will generally not be subject to § 505 fees), analysis of whether the Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. 1 (2021) fair use factors are analogous to the defendant's defense (Oracle upheld the transformative nature and market substitution factors as the primary determinants of fair use in software-interface copyright disputes), and documentation of the copyright registration date (first Welch anchor), the date infringement commenced (second anchor), and the judgment date (third anchor) as the three-anchor Welch framework for the § 505 billing period and the § 412 fee-eligibility determination — (50–56 min). At 55% untracked: 4 clients × 3 calls × 52 min × 55% = 343.2 min / 60 = 5.72 hours = $1,716–$2,860/year at $300–$500/hr.

How ClaimHour fits IP practice

If you handle patent prosecution, trademark registration, PTAB IPR/PGR defense, and IP litigation fee petitions — with USPTO prosecution advisory calls arriving when the USPTO mails office actions on the examiner's biweekly mailing schedule and the 3-month statutory response period begins running, PTAB IPR/PGR advisory calls arriving when the PTAB issues its institution decision and scheduling order on the PTAB's calendar and sets the Patent Owner Response, Petitioner's Reply, and oral argument deadlines, and § 285/§ 1117/§ 505 fee petition advisory calls arriving when the district court enters judgment and the FRCP 54(d)(2)(B) 14-day fee motion deadline begins running — and if your Octane Fitness exceptional case fee petitions, SunEarth Lanham Act fee petitions, and Kirtsaeng copyright fee petitions must be documented with contemporaneous billing records beginning on the USPTO application filing date (first Welch anchor) and the district court complaint or PTAB petition filing date (second anchor) through the final judgment date (third anchor), with every advisory call documented at phase-specific granularity sufficient to support the § 285 totality-of-circumstances exceptionality showing and survive the Highmark abuse-of-discretion appeal — ClaimHour was built for that gap.

Get early access

Related questions

How do USPTO patent prosecution and office action advisory calls generate billing gaps on the USPTO examination timeline?

USPTO office actions arrive on the examiner's biweekly mailing schedule — the attorney cannot predict or control when actions are mailed. Three call types: patent application status, global filing deadline, and Alice § 101 advisory (44–50 min, arriving when filing receipt is issued — requires Paris Convention 12-month priority monitoring, PCT deadline tracking, Alice two-step § 101 eligibility analysis for software/business-method claims, USPTO 2019 Revised Guidance three-prong Prong 1/Prong 2 assessment, and USPTO PAIR filing date as primary Welch anchor), first office action and § 102/§ 103 prior art advisory (44–50 min, arriving when FNOFA is mailed — requires § 102 anticipation single-reference element-by-element analysis, Graham v. John Deere KSR obviousness four-factor analysis, claim amendments and remarks distinguishing prior art, AFCP 2.0 after-final response viability, and Examiner Interview § 1.133 scheduling), and final rejection, RCE, and PTAB ex parte appeal advisory (44–50 min, arriving when final rejection is mailed — requires RCE vs. appeal cost-benefit analysis, Notice of Appeal 2-month deadline, Appeal Brief 2-month deadline, PTAB Revised Guidance § 101 eligibility arguments, and Reply Brief § 41.41 2-month deadline). At 55% untracked: 6 clients × 3 calls × 46 min × 55% ≈ 7.59 hours = $2,277–$3,795/year at $300–$500/hr.

How do PTAB IPR/PGR institution decision and scheduling order advisory calls generate billing gaps on the PTAB's scheduling calendar?

The PTAB's institution decision and scheduling order arrive on the PTAB's statutory calendar — the attorney cannot control when the PTAB issues its decision. Three call types: IPR petition service and POPR advisory (46–52 min, arriving when petition is served — requires Phillips claim construction for issued patents, SAS Institute all-or-nothing institution analysis, Fintiv discretionary denial factor assessment (parallel district court progress, investment, claim overlap, party identity, issue overlap), and POPR preparation), PTAB institution decision and scheduling order advisory (46–52 min, arriving when institution decision is issued — requires institution rationale analysis, § 315(b) RPI/privity time-bar investigation, Patent Owner Response preparation with expert declarations, and § 315(c) joinder motion assessment), and Patent Owner Response, Petitioner's Reply, and oral argument advisory (46–52 min, arriving when PTAB scheduling order sets deadlines — requires Patent Owner Response covering all instituted grounds (NuVasive waiver rule), declarant cross-examination preparation, 30-minute oral argument before 3-APJ panel preparation, § 319 Federal Circuit appeal strategy, and IPR petition date as second Welch anchor). At 55% untracked: 5 clients × 3 calls × 48 min × 55% ≈ 6.6 hours = $1,980–$3,300/year at $300–$500/hr.

How does § 285 Octane Fitness interact with § 1117 SunEarth and § 505 Kirtsaeng to create Welch temporal anchor documentation requirements?

§ 285 Octane Fitness requires totality-of-circumstances exceptionality (weak legal position or unreasonable litigation conduct); § 1117 SunEarth mirrors Octane Fitness for trademark; § 505 Kirtsaeng requires objective-reasonableness assessment plus Fogerty equal-treatment. The three Welch temporal anchors for IP billing are: (1) USPTO patent/trademark application filing date (USPTO PAIR/TSDR) or copyright registration date = primary anchor for prosecution advisory calls; (2) District court complaint filing date (PACER) or PTAB IPR petition filing date = anchor for litigation-phase advisory calls; (3) Final judgment or § 285/§ 1117/§ 505 fee award date (PACER) = anchor closing the complete billing period. Hours before anchor (1) are pre-engagement; hours after anchor (3) are post-judgment only. The § 412 copyright registration prerequisite means the registration date relative to infringement commencement date is an additional eligibility threshold anchor before the § 505 lodestar period begins.

How do § 285/§ 1117/§ 505 IP fee petition advisory calls generate billing gaps on the district court's judgment and fee briefing calendar?

IP fee petition deadlines are set by the court's post-judgment calendar and FRCP 54(d)(2)(B)'s 14-day fee motion window. Three call types: § 285 exceptional case and Octane Fitness totality advisory (50–56 min, arriving within 14 days of judgment — requires Octane Fitness 'stands out' analysis, documentation of weak-position and unreasonable-conduct instances, lodestar from USPTO filing date through judgment including PTAB IPR phase hours, Highmark abuse-of-discretion standard preservation), § 1117 willful infringement, enhanced damages, and counterfeit goods advisory (50–56 min, arriving within 14 days of judgment — requires § 1117(a) profits/damages/costs three-part remedy, § 1117(c) $2M/mark willful counterfeiting statutory damages election, SunEarth exceptional case fee analysis, trademark registration date + infringement commencement date + judgment date three-anchor framework, and eBay four-factor injunction), and § 505 copyright fee petition and Kirtsaeng objective-reasonableness advisory (50–56 min, arriving within 14 days of judgment — requires § 412 registration-before-infringement prerequisite determination, Kirtsaeng objective-reasonableness significant-weight factor, Fogerty equal-treatment analysis, Google v. Oracle fair use defense analogy, and copyright registration date + infringement date + judgment date three-anchor Welch framework). At 55% untracked: 4 clients × 3 calls × 52 min × 55% ≈ 5.72 hours = $1,716–$2,860/year at $300–$500/hr.

Further reading