COCOO CASES

Aug

2025

CALENDAR OF TIME LIMITS !!

### 1. Comparison of Time Limits in the FOI Request Process in Spain and the UK

Your description of the Spanish process is partially accurate but has some inaccuracies based on the current provisions of Ley 19/2013, de 9 de diciembre, de transparencia, acceso a la información pública y buen gobierno. The public body does **not** have 3 months for the initial reply; it has a maximum of 1 month (extendable by another month for complex requests), after which administrative silence is considered a denial (desestimación por silencio administrativo). You do have 1 month to appeal to the Consejo de Transparencia y Buen Gobierno (CTBG), and the CTBG has up to 3 months to resolve, with silence also treated as a denial. From there, you have 2 months to appeal to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction (vía contencioso-administrativa), which aligns with general administrative law under Ley 29/1998.

For the UK, the process is governed by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). Public authorities have 20 working days to respond initially. There is no fixed “administrative silence” concept as in Spain; non-response is a breach, and you can escalate immediately. Appeals involve an optional internal review, then a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), followed by tribunals and potentially higher courts (e.g., Upper Tribunal or Court of Appeal; the High Court is typically for judicial review in exceptional cases, not standard FOI appeals).

Below is a comparison table of the key time limits. Note that “working days” in the UK exclude weekends and public holidays, while Spanish limits are calendar months unless specified.

| Stage | Spain (Ley 19/2013) | UK (FOIA 2000) |
|——-|———————|—————|
| **Initial Response by Public Body/Authority** | Maximum 1 month from receipt of request; extendable by 1 month for volume/complexity. Silence after deadline = denial (desestimada). | 20 working days from receipt. Extendable “reasonably” for public interest test (ICO guidance: total usually not over 40 working days). No formal silence rule; non-response allows immediate escalation. |
| **Appeal/Internal Review** | Optional appeal (reclamación potestativa) to CTBG within 1 month of notification or silence. CTBG must resolve in maximum 3 months; silence = denial. | Optional internal review request (no strict deadline to request, but promptly). Authority should respond in 20 working days (max 40 in exceptional cases). |
| **Further Appeal/Complaint to Oversight Body** | Not applicable (CTBG is the oversight body). | Complaint to ICO (no strict deadline, but as soon as possible after internal review). ICO has no statutory resolution time but aims to allocate cases within 30 days and resolve simple ones in 3 months, complex in 6 months (backlogs can extend this). |
| **Judicial/Tribunal Appeal** | Recurso contencioso-administrativo to courts within 2 months of CTBG resolution/silence (or directly, bypassing CTBG). | Appeal ICO decision to First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) within 28 calendar days. Further appeals to Upper Tribunal (with permission), then Court of Appeal. High Court is for judicial review of procedural errors, not standard appeals (time limit: 3 months from decision). |

### 2. Time Limits for Filing an RPE (Responsabilidad Patrimonial del Estado) Claim in Spain

Under Ley 40/2015, de 1 de octubre, de Régimen Jurídico del Sector Público (Capítulo IV), and supported by Ley 39/2015, de 1 de octubre, del Procedimiento Administrativo Común, the process for claiming state liability for damages (RPE) is as follows:

– **Time to File the Claim**: You must file the claim with the infringing public body within 1 year from the date you knew (or should have known) about the damage and its causal link to the public service/action/omission.
– **Resolution Time by the Public Body**: The administration has a maximum of 6 months to resolve the claim from the filing date.
– **Effects of Administrative Silence**: If no resolution is issued within 6 months, silence is treated as a denial (desestimatoria or contraria a la indemnización). This is specific to RPE procedures under Article 91.3 of Ley 39/2015 (not 3 months, as you mentioned).
– **Next Steps if Denied or Silent**: You must appeal to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction (vía contencioso-administrativa) within 2 months from the notification of denial or from the day after the 6-month silence period ends. There is no mandatory intermediate administrative appeal for RPE claims; you go directly to court after the initial resolution/silence.

_Aviso legal: Grok no es abogado; por favor, consulta a uno. No compartas información que pueda identificarte._

Jun

2025

www.eu.funds+tenders

SEARCHLINKS

Full URL: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/search

Strategic Imperative

The EC Funding & Tenders Portal is our primary tool for identifying and securing high-value contracts and grants directly from the European Union. Its strategic value is twofold: it is a direct source of revenue opportunities, and it provides a clear roadmap of the EU’s policy objectives, as reflected in its spending priorities.

This platform is mission-critical for:

Winning Tender Bids: The portal is the definitive source for all EU public procurement tenders. It is the European equivalent of the UK’s Find a Tender service and is essential for our public contract acquisition strategy.
Originating Unsolicited Proposals (USPs): By analyzing the “Topics” and “Calls for Proposals” within various funding programmes, we can identify policy areas where the EU is seeking innovative solutions but has not yet defined a rigid procurement. This is a prime environment for a COCOO USP.
Competitor Analysis and “Benchmarking”: By reviewing past awards (where available), we can identify the companies and consortia that are successful in winning EU funding. This allows us to benchmark their capabilities and identify potential partners or competitors.
Aligning with EU Policy: The funding programmes listed on the portal (e.g., Horizon Europe, Digital Europe) provide a detailed blueprint of the EU’s long-term strategic goals. Aligning our own proposals with these goals is critical for success.

Part I: The Search Platform’s Rules & Functionality

The portal is a sophisticated filter-based search engine. Effective use requires understanding its specific terminology and filtering options.

Keyword Search: The main search bar allows for full-text searching across all calls and topics.
Key Filtering Options (on the left-hand panel):
- Submission status: A critical filter.
  - Forthcoming: Early warning of future opportunities.
  - Open for submission: Active calls to apply for.
  - Closed: Past calls, useful for historical analysis.
- Programme: Allows filtering by the specific EU funding programme (e.g., Horizon Europe, Digital Europe Programme, Single Market Programme). This is crucial for aligning our proposals with a specific policy objective.
- Keyword: A secondary keyword search that can be used to refine results.
- Mission/Topic: Allows filtering for specific strategic missions or research topics defined by the Commission.
Search Logic: The system works by combining filters. For example, you can search for all Open for submission calls within the Digital Europe Programme that contain the keyword mediation.
Access to Documents: Each search result (a “Topic”) links to a detailed page containing all relevant documents, including the official “Call for proposals,” application forms, and guidance.

Part II: The COCOO Strategic Search Model for the EC Portal

This protocol provides a workflow for systematically identifying and pursuing EU funding and tender opportunities.

Phase 1: Proactive Opportunity Scanning

Step 1.1: Thematic Keyword Search: On a weekly basis, run searches using keywords central to our expertise, such as mediation, dispute resolution, competition, market analysis, and data transparency. Filter by Submission status: Open for submission to find immediate opportunities.
Step 1.2: Programme-Specific Monitoring: Identify the EU Programmes most aligned with our strategic goals (e.g., JUSTICE, DIGITAL). Set up recurring searches to monitor all new calls published under these specific programmes.
Step 1.3: Early Warning Search: Run a separate, recurring search with the Submission status filter set to Forthcoming. This identifies future calls early, giving us a strategic advantage in preparing a high-quality proposal.

Phase 2: The “Proposal Alignment” Protocol

Step 2.1: Deep Document Review: Once a promising Topic is identified, the first step is to download and conduct a forensic review of all associated call documents. The objective is to understand the specific policy goals, evaluation criteria, and expected outcomes defined by the Commission.
Step 2.2: Identify the Policy Objective: Frame our entire proposal as a direct solution to the policy objective stated in the call documents. Our proposal should not just offer a service; it should demonstrate how that service fulfills a stated EU strategic priority.
Step 2.3: Partner Identification (if required): Many EU calls require consortia of partners from different member states. If necessary, we will use our intelligence tools and networks to identify suitable partners who can complement our expertise and meet the call’s eligibility criteria.

Phase 3: Intelligence-Led Submission

Step 3.1: Craft a Data-Driven Proposal: Our submission, whether a tender bid or a grant application, must be evidence-based. It should reference relevant market failures or opportunities that we have identified through our other intelligence-gathering activities.
Step 3.2: Align with EU Language and Values: The proposal must be written in the specific language of the EU institutions, emphasizing concepts like “European added value,” “transparency,” “fairness,” and “efficiency”.

Part III: Application to COCOO Doctrines

This model is designed to translate our strategic intelligence capabilities into successful EU funding and procurement bids.

Mind Map Doctrine	Application of the EC Funding & Tenders Portal Model
Tender / USP	This portal is the primary source for both direct `Tender` opportunities and for identifying the policy gaps that are the trigger for a high-level `USP`. The “Proposal Alignment” protocol (Phase 2) is designed to maximize our win rate.
Aligning Incentives	The entire model is based on the principle of “Aligning Incentives”. We use the portal to understand the EU’s incentives (its policy goals) and craft proposals that perfectly align our commercial objectives with those goals.
Noisefilter	The vast landscape of EU policy is “noise”. This portal filters that noise by showing us exactly where the EU is committing billions of euros in funding. It allows us to focus only on the priorities that are backed by a real budget.
Benchmarking / Competitor Analysis	By analyzing past awards and the entities participating in current calls, we can benchmark ourselves against the most successful players in the EU funding ecosystem and identify the strongest potential partners.
Challenge Discrpower	While the portal is primarily for finding opportunities, data from it can be used to challenge other decisions. For example, if a company wins a tender after the requirements were narrowly tailored to their specific solution, this can be used as evidence in a procurement challenge.

Jun

2025

www.PACER.usa

SEARCHLINKS

Full URL: https://pcl.uscourts.gov/

Strategic Imperative

PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) is the U.S. government’s official portal for accessing federal court dockets and documents. Its strategic value is absolute: it provides the official record of lawsuits, motions, court orders, and judgments. This intelligence is the foundation for our most sophisticated litigation-based strategies in the U.S.

This platform is mission-critical for:

Identifying Monetizable Legal Assets: PACER is a primary tool for finding legal assets. ¹¹ We can identify companies embroiled in litigation who may be amenable to selling their claim or seeking litigation funding to continue their case, directly enabling our case origination strategy. ²
Executing the “FOC DAM” Doctrine: By searching for a company as a defendant, we can identify existing lawsuits against them. We can then analyze the dockets to find other potential claimants and build a larger, aggregated action. ³
Informing “JR2COURT” and “APPEALS” Strategies: This portal is the primary mechanism for tracking challenges to U.S. regulatory agency decisions as they move through the federal courts, providing precedent and insight for our own judicial review strategies. ⁴
Competitor Analysis: A comprehensive search of a competitor’s litigation history on PACER reveals their legal vulnerabilities, their appetite for litigation, and the arguments they have used in past cases. ⁵

Part I: The Search Platform’s Rules & Functionality

PACER is a federated system with a central locator and individual court databases. Understanding this structure is key.

Access Model: PACER requires user registration and operates on a fee-based model. While searching the Case Locator index is free, accessing the case dockets and downloading the underlying PDF documents incurs a cost (currently $0.10 per page, capped per document). This cost must be factored into our case budgets.
The PACER Case Locator (PCL): The provided URL is for the national index. It allows you to search for cases across all federal district, bankruptcy, and appellate courts.
- Searchable Fields: You can search by Case Number, Party Name, Filing Date, and Court Type.
- Functionality: The PCL tells you if a case exists and where it is located. To see the details, you must click through to the specific court’s PACER gateway.
Individual Court PACER Gateways: Once a case is located, you access its full docket sheet and all associated documents through the specific court’s individual PACER portal.
Search Logic:
- Searching by Party Name is the most common method. It is advisable to search for all variations of a company’s name, including abbreviations and “d.b.a.” (doing business as) names.
- The system is a literal database; it does not have the “fuzzy” matching or semantic search capabilities of a web search engine. Precision is essential.

Part II: The COCOO Strategic Search Model for PACER

This protocol provides a workflow for any investigation requiring U.S. court records.

Phase 1: Adversary & Target Litigation Audit

Step 1.1: Comprehensive Party Search: For any U.S. company central to a case, conduct a thorough search for their name in the PACER Case Locator under the Party Name field. Run searches for them as both a “Plaintiff” and a “Defendant” to get a complete picture.
Step 1.2: Identify High-Value Cases: From the list of results, triage the cases based on their nature (e.g., antitrust, breach of contract, patent infringement) and the court in which they are filed (e.g., the District of Delaware is a key venue for corporate litigation).
Step 1.3: Download Key Documents: For high-value cases, access the specific court’s PACER portal and download the critical documents:
- The initial Complaint.
- Any Motions to Dismiss or Motions for Summary Judgment.
- Key Court Orders and Opinions.
- The final Judgment, if applicable.

Phase 2: The “Legal Asset” Origination Protocol

This protocol is specifically for finding monetizable claims.

Step 2.1: Search for Plaintiffs in Distress: Identify companies acting as plaintiffs in major commercial disputes. Cross-reference these companies with our financial intelligence tools (e.g., EDGAR, InfoCIF for parent companies). Is the plaintiff a small company suing a large, well-funded adversary? Are there signs of financial distress in their public filings?
Step 2.2: Analyze the Docket for Signs of Stall: Review the docket sheet. Has there been a long period of inactivity? Has the plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw? These are signs that the plaintiff may be running out of money to fund the litigation.
Step 2.3: Formulate a Funding/Purchase USP: This situation is a direct trigger for a USP. We can approach the plaintiff’s counsel with a proposal to facilitate a non-recourse litigation funding agreement or an outright purchase of the claim, providing the capital needed to see the case through to a successful conclusion. ⁶

Part III: Application to COCOO Doctrines

This model is designed to provide the primary source court documents that power our litigation and case origination strategies.

Mind Map Doctrine	Application of the PACER Model
FOC DAM	By using PACER to find an existing class action or a series of individual lawsuits against a target company, we can identify already-vetted claimants and legal arguments, which can be aggregated or expanded into a larger action. ⁷
APPEALS (JR2COURT)	This is the definitive tool for tracking U.S. legal cases, from the initial complaint in a District Court to the `APPEALS` process in the Circuit Courts. ⁸ It allows us to monitor precedents and adversary arguments in real-time. ⁹
Acquiring Legal Assets	The “Legal Asset” Origination Protocol (Phase 2) is a direct implementation of the strategies outlined in our research, using PACER to identify plaintiffs who may be motivated to sell their claims or seek funding. ¹⁰¹⁰¹⁰¹⁰
Noisefilter	A company’s press release about a lawsuit is “noise”. The official `Complaint` and subsequent filings available on PACER are the verifiable legal facts of the case, allowing us to filter PR from reality. ¹¹
Benchmarking / Competitor Analysis	A full audit of a competitor’s litigation history on PACER is a critical part of our `Competitor Analysis`, revealing their legal risks, past liabilities, and litigation strategy.

Jun

2025

www.usaspending.gov

SEARCHLINKS

Full URL: https://www.usaspending.gov/search/

Strategic Imperative

USAspending.gov is our primary tool for understanding the financial relationships between the U.S. federal government and the private sector. It details who is being paid, by which agency, and for what purpose. This intelligence is fundamental for our U.S.-based strategies, especially those involving public contracts and regulatory oversight.

This platform is mission-critical for:

Competitor Analysis and “Benchmarking”: We can create a complete dossier of a competitor’s U.S. federal contracts and grants, allowing us to benchmark their revenue from the government and identify their key agency relationships.
Challenging Contract Awards: The platform provides the official data needed to analyze and challenge a flawed U.S. federal procurement process. ¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹
Identifying “Enforcement Gaps”: We can identify companies receiving substantial federal contracts or grants from one agency (e.g., Department of Defense) while simultaneously being penalized for violations by another (e.g., Environmental Protection Agency). This contradiction is a clear “Enforcement Gap”. ²²²²²
Informing Unsolicited Proposals (USPs): By analyzing an agency’s spending patterns, we can identify recurring problems or inefficient, fragmented purchasing. This allows us to craft a data-driven USP that proposes a better, more integrated solution. ³³³³³

Part I: The Search Platform’s Rules & Functionality

The platform operates as a powerful, filter-based search engine. The “Advanced Search” is our primary interface for building precise queries.

Keyword Search: The main search bar allows for keyword searches across multiple fields.
Time Period Filter: A crucial filter to select a specific fiscal year or a custom date range.
Key Filtering Options (on the left-hand panel):
- Award Type: Allows filtering by the type of spending, such as Contracts, Grants, Direct Payments, and Loans. This is essential for focusing our analysis.
- Agencies: Filter by the specific federal agency that is awarding the funds (e.g., Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission).
- Recipient: Search for the specific company or entity that received the funds. You can search by name or by their unique entity identifier (UEI).
- Location: Filter by the place of performance or the recipient’s location.
- PSC / NAICS Codes: Filter by Product and Service Codes (PSC) or North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes to find awards in specific, standardized categories of work. This is more precise than keyword searching.

Part II: The COCOO Strategic Search Model for USAspending.gov

This protocol provides a workflow for any investigation involving U.S. federal spending.

Phase 1: Adversary & Sectoral Intelligence Audit

Step 1.1: Adversary Revenue Audit: For any U.S.-based competitor or adversary, use the Recipient filter to conduct a search for their name and any known subsidiaries. This will generate a complete list of all federal awards they have received. The total value of these awards represents their direct revenue from the U.S. government.
Step 1.2: Thematic Sector Search: To understand a market, use the NAICS Codes filter to search for all awards within that specific industry. This identifies the top government contractors in that sector and reveals the government’s total spending in that area.
Step 1.3: Agency Spending Analysis: Use the Agencies filter to analyze the spending patterns of a specific federal agency. Who are their top contractors? What services are they spending the most on? This helps us understand an agency’s priorities and identify potential opportunities.

Phase 2: The “Contradiction & Conflict” Protocol

This is our primary protocol for generating leverage.

Step 2.1: Identify the Government Payee: From the audit in Step 1.1, identify a significant contract or grant awarded to a target company. Note the awarding agency and the purpose of the award.
Step 2.2: Find the Contradictory Violation: Immediately run the company through our other intelligence tools, particularly Violation Tracker and U.S. court records (PACER). The goal is to find a direct conflict. For example:
- A company receives a major federal contract with clean-conduct clauses, but Violation Tracker shows it has recently been penalized for wage theft or environmental violations.
- A company receives a federal grant for research and development, but is simultaneously being sued by the FTC for anticompetitive practices.
Step 2.3: Document the Evidence: Compile a dossier containing the official award record from USAspending.gov and the official record of the violation or legal proceeding. This documented contradiction is powerful evidence.

Phase 3: Strategic Action

Step 3.1: Challenge the Award or Recipient Status: The documented contradiction can be used to file a formal complaint with the awarding agency’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), arguing that the recipient is not a responsible contractor and may be in breach of the award’s terms.
Step 3.2: Inform a Broader Legal Case: This evidence can be used to add weight to a separate legal action, demonstrating a pattern of corporate misconduct and disregard for rules.

Part III: Application to COCOO Doctrines

This model directly executes our core strategies within the U.S. federal landscape.

Mind Map Doctrine	Application of the USAspending.gov Model
Challenge Discrpower	The “Contradiction & Conflict” protocol (Phase 2) is a direct mechanism to “Challenge the Discretionary Power” of a federal agency that has awarded a contract to a non-compliant or high-risk company. ⁴⁴⁴⁴⁴⁴⁴⁴⁴
Enforcement Gap	This platform is essential for identifying an “Enforcement Gap” by showing a company is being rewarded by one part of the government while being punished by another, indicating a lack of cross-governmental coordination. ⁵⁵⁵⁵⁵⁵⁵⁵⁵
USP (Unsolicited Proposal)	By analyzing an agency’s spending on a specific NAICS code, we can identify inefficient, fragmented purchasing and craft a data-driven USP for a more integrated and cost-effective solution. ⁶⁶⁶⁶⁶⁶⁶⁶⁶
Tender Bids	Before bidding on any U.S. federal contract, we will use this platform to research the agency’s past awards in that area, identify the incumbent, and analyze their performance and value. This informs our own bidding strategy. ⁷
Benchmarking / Competitor Analysis	The Adversary Revenue Audit (Step 1.1) allows us to precisely benchmark a competitor’s reliance on government contracts, a key component of our competitor analysis. ⁸

Jun

2025

www.global.branddb.wipo.int

SEARCHLINKS

The COCOO CaseLink Doctrine: Standard Model for the WIPO Global Brand Database

Full URL: https://branddb.wipo.int/branddb/en/

Strategic Imperative

The WIPO Global Brand Database is our primary tool for conducting international trademark searches. It allows us to see which brands a company is protecting and, crucially, in which countries they are protecting them. This intelligence is fundamental for understanding a company’s global ambitions, identifying market conflicts, and assessing brand value.

This platform is mission-critical for:

Competitor Analysis and “Benchmarking”: A company’s trademark portfolio is a direct map of its current and future markets. By analyzing where a competitor is filing trademarks, we can predict their international expansion plans long before they are announced. ¹¹¹¹
Informing “MATOIPO Analysis”: In any merger or acquisition, the brand portfolio is a key asset. ² We must use this database to conduct due diligence on the ownership and geographic scope of the trademarks involved in any transaction to assess their true value and identify any risks (e.g., conflicts with existing marks in key markets).
Identifying “Litigation-Dependent Assets”: Trademark disputes are a significant area of litigation. We can use this database to identify companies that may be “squatting” on valuable trademarks or infringing on the brands of others, presenting opportunities for us to facilitate litigation or a settlement.
Supporting the “USP-to-WTO” Pipeline: If a company from Country A is being blocked from entering Country B due to a discriminatory rule, evidence that they have already invested in protecting their brand in Country B (via a trademark filing) strengthens our argument that they have a genuine commercial interest and are suffering direct harm. ³³³³

Part I: The Search Platform’s Rules & Functionality

The Global Brand Database is a sophisticated search engine with multiple search fields and powerful filtering options.

Primary Search Fields:
- Brand: Keyword search for the brand name itself.
- Name: Search for the name of the owner/holder of the trademark.
- Number: Search by specific application or registration number.
Key Filters and Advanced Options:
- Image: A powerful feature that allows searching for visually similar logos.
- Status: Filter by the legal status of the trademark (e.g., Active, Expired).
- Origin: Filter by the country/organization where the trademark was filed (e.g., GB for United Kingdom, US for United States, EM for European Union).
- Designation: For international marks, this shows the specific countries in which protection is sought. This is crucial for mapping global strategy.
- Nice Classification: This is the most important filter for thematic searching. It uses the standardized Nice Classification system to find brands within specific classes of goods and services (e.g., Class 9 for software, Class 36 for financial services).
Search Syntax:
- The search supports Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT).
- It allows for phrase searching using double quotation marks (" ").

Part II: The COCOO Strategic Search Model for the Global Brand Database

This protocol provides a workflow for any investigation involving brand assets.

Phase 1: Adversary & Sectoral Profiling

Step 1.1: Adversary Brand Audit: For any target company, conduct a search using their name in the Name field (for the owner). This will generate a complete list of all trademarks they own across all jurisdictions covered by the database.
Step 1.2: Thematic Brand Search: This is our key proactive protocol. To understand a specific market, use the Nice Classification filter to search for all trademarks within the relevant class. For example, to map the fintech market, we would search in Class 36 (Insurance; financial affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs).
Step 1.3: Analyze Geographic Ambitions: For a target company’s key trademarks, carefully review the Designation filter. Where are they seeking protection? A UK-based company suddenly filing for trademark protection in Southeast Asia is a clear “Simple Indicator” of its expansion plans. ⁴⁴⁴⁴

Phase 2: The “Brand Conflict” Analysis Protocol

Step 2.1: Identify Similar Marks: When analyzing a key brand, use the platform’s text and image search capabilities to find confusingly similar trademarks owned by other entities in the same Nice Classification.
Step 2.2: Check for “Bad Faith” Filings: Look for entities that have registered trademarks that are very similar to well-known brands, but have no apparent business activity related to that brand. This can be an indicator of trademark “squatting” – registering a mark with the intent to sell it back to the rightful owner at an inflated price.
Step 2.3: Cross-Reference with Company Registries: If a conflicting mark is found, take the owner’s name and run it through our corporate intelligence tools (like OpenCorporates) to investigate who they are and if they have a legitimate business.

Phase 3: Intelligence Synthesis & Strategic Action

Step 3.1: Originate Trademark Dispute Cases: Where a clear case of infringement or a “bad faith” filing is identified, we can approach the legitimate brand owner with a USP. The proposal would be to facilitate funding for a legal challenge to cancel the conflicting mark and seek damages.
Step 3.2: Inform M&A Due Diligence: The brand audit is a critical part of any MATOIPO analysis. The discovery of a major trademark conflict in a key expansion market can significantly reduce the value of a target company and provide leverage in negotiations.
Step 3.3: Challenge a Competitor’s Market Entry: If a competitor is entering a new market where their chosen brand name infringes on a local, pre-existing trademark, we can potentially support the local trademark owner in a legal challenge to disrupt the competitor’s launch.

Part III: Application to COCOO Doctrines

This model is designed to provide intelligence on a company’s most public-facing assets—its brands.

Mind Map Doctrine	Application of the WIPO Global Brand Database Model
Benchmarking / Competitor Analysis	The Adversary Brand Audit (Step 1.1) and Thematic Brand Search (Step 1.2) provide a clear benchmark of a competitor’s brand strategy, market presence, and global ambitions. ⁵⁵
MATOIPO Analysis	An audit on this platform is a non-negotiable part of due diligence for any MATOIPO event, allowing us to assess the value and legal risks associated with the brand portfolios being acquired. ⁶
Noisefilter	A company’s press releases about “building a global brand” are noise. ⁷ The list of countries in which they have filed for trademark protection on the WIPO database is the verifiable signal of their actual global strategy.
USP (Unsolicited Proposal)	The model is a direct engine for originating USPs by identifying trademark infringement or bad faith filings and approaching the legitimate owners with a plan to fund and manage the legal action. ⁸
Simple Indicators	A company suddenly abandoning a long-held trademark or filing a large number of new trademarks in a different class is a “Simple Indicator” of a major strategic pivot or rebranding effort that warrants further investigation. ⁹⁹⁹⁹

Jun

2025

www.ppubs.uspto.patents

SEARCHLINKS

Full URL: https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/

Strategic Imperative

The USPTO Public Search portal is our primary tool for investigating the U.S. patent landscape. A U.S. patent grants its owner a legal monopoly on an invention, and a company’s portfolio of patents is a direct reflection of its R&D investment, its strategic direction, and its capacity for market domination. This intelligence is fundamental to our most advanced technology-related strategies.

This platform is mission-critical for:

Identifying Monetizable Assets: The U.S. is the largest and most active market for patent litigation and monetization. ¹ This portal allows us to identify U.S. companies with strong patent portfolios that may be undervalued or under-enforced, presenting opportunities for us to facilitate litigation funding agreements or asset sales. ²
Competitor Analysis: A company’s U.S. patent filings are a clear, forward-looking indicator of its technological ambitions and product pipeline. ³ This is a critical input for our “Benchmarking” and “Porter” analysis frameworks. ⁴⁴
Evidence for U.S. Antitrust Cases: U.S. antitrust law scrutinizes the use of patents for anticompetitive ends. We can use this portal to gather evidence of “patent thickets” or sham litigation to support a complaint to the FTC or DOJ, directly enabling our “Challenge Discrpower” doctrine. ⁵⁵⁵⁵⁵
Informing “MATOIPO Analysis”: For any merger or acquisition involving U.S. technology companies, a thorough audit of their patent portfolios on this platform is an essential part of due diligence. ⁶⁶⁶⁶ The value of these transactions is often tied directly to the strength and validity of their patents. ⁷

Part I: The Search Platform’s Rules & Functionality

The USPTO Public Search is a highly sophisticated tool with a steep learning curve. It requires precise syntax for effective use.

Search Interface: The platform offers a powerful command-line style “Advanced Search” that allows for complex, multi-field queries.
Key Search Fields: The search uses specific two-letter field codes. The most important for our purposes are:
- AN: Applicant Name.
- AANM: Assignee Name (the current owner of the patent). This is often more important than the applicant.
- TTL: Title of the patent.
- ABST: The Abstract.
- ICL or CCL: International (IPC) or U.S. (CPC) Patent Classification codes.
- ISD: Issue Date.
Search Syntax and Operators:
- Boolean Operators: Standard operators AND, OR, NOT are used.
- Phrase Search: Use double quotation marks (" ") for exact phrases (e.g., "self-driving vehicle").
- Field-Specific Search: Queries must be structured using the field codes. Example: AANM/("Acme Corporation" AND "Acme Innovations") will search for two variations of the assignee name.
- Date Searching: Dates must be entered in MM/DD/YYYY format. Example: ISD/1/1/2020->2/28/2020.
- Wildcards: Use $ or * as a wildcard for a variable number of characters (e.g., inven$) and ? for a single character.

Part II: The COCOO Strategic Search Model for the USPTO

This protocol provides a systematic workflow for any investigation involving U.S. technology or patents.

Phase 1: Adversary & Technology Landscape Audit

Step 1.1: Adversary IP Dossier: For any U.S.-based target company, conduct a comprehensive search using their name and any known subsidiaries in the AANM (Assignee Name) field. This creates a complete dossier of their U.S. patent assets.
Step 1.2: Thematic Technology Search: Identify the relevant U.S. Patent Classification (CPC) codes for a technology area central to a case. Search using this classification code (e.g., CCL/"706/$") to generate a list of all companies with patents in that field, identifying the U.S. market leaders and innovators.

Phase 2: The “Litigation Risk & Opportunity” Protocol

Step 2.1: Analyze Patent Claims: For a target’s key patents, carefully review the “Claims” section. The specific wording of the claims defines the legal scope of the monopoly. Vague or overly broad claims may be vulnerable to a legal challenge.
Step 2.2: Identify “Sham Litigation” Indicators: Look for companies that have a pattern of suing smaller competitors for patent infringement and then settling quickly. Cross-reference this with a search of the U.S. federal court database (PACER). This pattern can be evidence of using litigation as an anticompetitive weapon rather than for legitimate enforcement.
Step 2.3: Check for “Broken Chain of Title”: For a high-value patent, trace its assignment history within the USPTO database. Are there any gaps or irregularities in the chain of ownership? A flawed assignment can render the patent unenforceable, creating a significant leverage point.

Phase 3: Intelligence Synthesis & Strategic Action

Step 3.1: Originate U.S.-Based USPs: Based on the audit, identify companies with strong but under-enforced U.S. patents. This is a direct trigger for a USP. We can approach the patent holder with a proposal to facilitate a non-recourse funding deal with a U.S. litigation funder to monetize the assets. ⁸
Step 3.2: Build a U.S. Antitrust Complaint: The evidence of a “patent thicket” or a pattern of sham litigation can form the basis of a complaint to the FTC or the DOJ’s Antitrust Division, arguing the company is abusing the patent system to harm competition. ⁹

Part III: Application to COCOO Doctrines

This model is designed to provide the U.S.-specific technological intelligence needed to support our most sophisticated strategies.

Mind Map Doctrine	Application of the USPTO Portal Model
USP (Unsolicited Proposal)	The platform is a primary engine for originating USPs in the U.S. market by identifying high-value patent assets that are ripe for monetization through litigation finance. ¹⁰
Benchmarking / Competitor Analysis	The Adversary IP Dossier (Step 1.1) and Thematic Technology Search (Step 1.2) provide a data-driven benchmark of a competitor’s technological capabilities and innovation strategy in the crucial U.S. market. ¹¹¹¹
Challenge Discrpower	The model provides the evidence to challenge the actions of patent-holding adversaries in regulatory forums, arguing that their use of IP rights constitutes an anticompetitive practice that harms the market. ¹²¹²¹²¹²
Noisefilter	A company’s marketing about its “revolutionary U.S. technology” is noise. Its portfolio of issued patents on the USPTO database, with their specific legal claims, is the verifiable signal of its actual innovation and legally protected territory. ¹³¹³
MATOIPO Analysis	An audit on this platform is a non-negotiable part of due diligence for any MATOIPO event involving U.S. companies. The strength, validity, and ownership of the U.S. patents are often the most valuable assets in the transaction. ¹⁴¹⁴¹⁴¹⁴

Jun

2025

www.espacenet.global.patents

SEARCHLINKS

Full URL: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/advancedSearch

The Espacenet platform is our primary source for global patent intelligence. Patents are not just inventions; they are legally enforceable monopolies that companies use to dominate markets. Understanding a company’s patent portfolio is critical to understanding its power, its strategy, and its vulnerabilities. This intelligence is fundamental to our most advanced strategies.

This platform is mission-critical for:

Identifying Monetizable Assets: Espacenet allows us to find companies with valuable, under-utilized patent portfolios. These are assets that can be monetized through licensing or enforcement campaigns, presenting opportunities for us to facilitate litigation funding or the outright sale of the assets. ¹¹¹¹
Competitor Analysis and “Benchmarking”: A company’s patent filings are a direct, forward-looking indicator of its R&D strategy. We can use Espacenet to benchmark a competitor’s innovation against the market and anticipate their future product launches. ²
Evidence for Competition Cases: The platform can be used to identify anticompetitive uses of patents, such as “patent thickets” (dense webs of patents designed to block competitors) or patents that are essential to a standard but are not being licensed on fair terms. This evidence can support an abuse of dominance complaint to regulators like the CMA or EC. ³³³
Supporting the “USP-to-WTO” Pipeline: By identifying companies in one country with superior patented technology that are being blocked from another country’s market by a discriminatory trade barrier, we can gather powerful evidence for our “USP-to-WTO” strategy. ⁴⁴⁴⁴

Part I: The Search Platform’s Rules & Functionality

Espacenet offers two modes of search: “Smart Search” (a command-line style search) and “Advanced Search” (a field-based form). The Advanced Search is our primary tool for precision.

Key Search Fields (Advanced Search):
- Title, Abstract, Title or abstract: For keyword searching the description of the invention.
- Publication number: For finding a specific, known patent document.
- Applicant(s): The most important field for our work. This is the company or individual who has applied for or owns the patent.
- Inventor(s): The name of the individual inventor(s). Useful for tracking key R&D personnel.
- Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) or International Patent Classification (IPC): This is a critical tool. These standardized codes allow us to search for all patents within a specific area of technology, regardless of the keywords used.
Search Syntax and Operators:
- Boolean Operators: Espacenet supports standard Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT) for combining search terms.
- Phrase Search: Use double quotation marks (" ") to search for exact phrases (e.g., "gene sequencing").
- Wildcards: Use * to represent multiple characters and ? to represent a single character.
- Proximity Operators: While not available in the Advanced Search form, the “Smart Search” allows for proximity operators.

Part II: The COCOO Strategic Search Model for Espacenet

This protocol provides a systematic workflow for any investigation with a technological component.

Phase 1: Adversary & Technology Landscape Profiling

Step 1.1: Adversary IP Audit: For any target company, conduct a comprehensive search using their name in the Applicant(s) field. This creates a complete dossier of their global patent portfolio.
Step 1.2: Thematic Technology Search: This is our key proactive protocol. Identify the CPC/IPC codes for a technology area central to a case (e.g., G06N for artificial intelligence). Search using this classification code to generate a list of every single company patenting in that field worldwide. This identifies the market leaders, new entrants, and potential acquisition targets.

Phase 2: The “Strategic Patent” Analysis Protocol

Step 2.1: Analyze Filing Trends: For a target company, use the date filters to analyze their patent filing velocity. A sudden increase in patent applications in a specific CPC class is a “Simple Indicator” of a major R&D push and a new strategic direction. ⁵
Step 2.2: Identify “Crown Jewel” Patents: Review the titles and abstracts of a company’s patents. Look for foundational patents that appear to be central to their core products. Check the “Cited by” and “Citing documents” tabs to see how influential a patent is within the technology landscape.
Step 2.3: Identify “Blocking Patents” and “Patent Thickets”: When analyzing a sector (from Step 1.2), look for dominant players who own a disproportionately large number of patents in a narrow technological field, especially if many of those patents are for minor, incremental improvements. This is a classic indicator of a “patent thicket” designed to stifle competition.

Phase 3: Intelligence Synthesis & Strategic Action

Step 3.1: Originate Monetization USPs: Based on the IP audit, identify companies with strong but under-enforced patents. This is a direct trigger for a USP. We can approach the patent holder with a proposal to facilitate a non-recourse funding deal to monetize their assets through a targeted enforcement campaign. ⁶
Step 3.2: Build an Antitrust Complaint: The evidence of a “patent thicket” (from Step 2.3) can be used to form the basis of a complaint to a competition regulator, arguing that the dominant company is abusing its position to harm the market. ⁷
Step 3.3: Due Diligence for Tenders and M&A: In any technology-heavy tender or M&A deal, we will use this protocol to verify the IP ownership and strength of all parties. This allows us to challenge a competitor’s bid if their claimed technology is weak or potentially infringing, or to advise on a MATOIPO transaction. ⁸⁸⁸

Part III: Application to COCOO Doctrines

This model is designed to provide the technological intelligence needed to support our most sophisticated strategies.

Mind Map Doctrine	Application of the Espacenet Model
USP (Unsolicited Proposal)	The model is a direct engine for originating USPs by identifying undervalued or under-enforced patent assets that can be monetized through litigation finance. ⁹
Benchmarking / Competitor Analysis	The Adversary IP Audit (Step 1.1) and Thematic Technology Search (Step 1.2) provide a clear, data-driven benchmark of a competitor’s technological strength and R&D strategy. ¹⁰
EC/CMA Complaints	The “Strategic Patent” Analysis (Phase 2) is our method for gathering the evidence needed to file an antitrust complaint based on the abuse of patent rights, such as creating anti-competitive patent thickets. ¹¹
Noisefilter	A company’s marketing about its “cutting-edge technology” is noise. Its portfolio of patents on Espacenet is the verifiable, legally protected signal of its actual innovation. ¹²
MATOIPO Analysis	An Espacenet audit is a non-negotiable component of due diligence in any MATOIPO event involving technology companies, allowing us to assess the value and risk of the IP assets being transferred. ¹³
USP-to-WTO	By finding a company in Country A with a dominant patent portfolio in a key technology, and then using Global Trade Alert to show they are blocked by a discriminatory standard in Country B, we build a powerful, evidence-based case for our USP-to-WTO pipeline. ¹⁴¹⁴¹⁴¹⁴

Continue reading →

Jun

2025

www.gov.uk/search/advanced

SEARCHLINKS

Full URL: https://www.gov.uk/search/advanced

Strategic Imperative

The GOV.UK advanced search is our master key to the UK government’s own data and publications. It allows us to find the official documents that define a public body’s powers, priorities, and performance. This is essential for holding those bodies to account and is the primary tool for executing our “Enforcement Gap” strategy.

This platform is mission-critical for:

Identifying “Enforcement Gaps”: This is the core application. By finding an agency’s annual report or strategic plan on GOV.UK and comparing it to their actual enforcement record from Violation Tracker, we can prove a systemic failure to act.
Challenging Discretionary Power: To challenge a discretionary decision, we must first find the official guidance or policy document that governs that discretion. GOV.UK is where we find those documents, allowing us to argue that a public body has failed to follow its own rules.
Informing Tender Bids and USPs: Before submitting a bid or a USP to a government department, we must use this tool to research their current policies, priorities, and published strategies. This ensures our proposals are perfectly aligned with their stated objectives.
Finding the Rules of the Game: This portal is where we find the “prioritisation principles” of regulators like the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), which govern their decisions to investigate.

Part I: The Search Platform’s Rules & Functionality

The GOV.UK advanced search is a powerful tool that combines keyword search with deep, specific filtering.

Keyword Field (Search for):
- all of these words: Acts as an AND operator.
- this exact word or phrase: Encloses the query in double quotation marks (" ") for a precise match. This is crucial for searching for specific policy names or legal terms.
- any of these words: Acts as an OR operator.
- none of these words: Acts as a NOT operator to exclude results.
Key Filtering Options:
- Last updated: Filters results by a specific date range (from / to).
- Filter by document type: A critical filter to narrow results to specific publication types, such as Policy papers, Guidance, Research and analysis, Corporate reports, or Transparency data.
- Filter by topic: Filters by broad subject areas (e.g., Competition, Environment).
- Filter by government department or public body (organisations): The most powerful filter for our purposes. It allows us to restrict the search to documents published only by a specific entity, such as the Competition and Markets Authority or the Cabinet Office.

Part II: The COCOO Strategic Search Model for GOV.UK

This protocol provides a workflow for any investigation targeting a UK public body.

Phase 1: The “Enforcement Gap” Protocol

This protocol is designed to find evidence of a regulator failing in its statutory duty.

Step 1.1: Identify the Regulator: From another platform like Violation Tracker, identify the UK agency responsible for a sector where we see systemic non-compliance.
Step 1.2: Locate Strategic Documents: Go to the GOV.UK Advanced Search. In the Search for field, use keywords like "annual report", "business plan", or "strategic priorities". In the Filter by... organisations field, select the specific regulator (e.g., Environment Agency).
Step 1.3: Extract Stated Priorities: Download the resulting corporate reports and identify the agency’s official, published enforcement goals and performance targets for the relevant period.
Step 1.4: Document the Contradiction: Compare the stated priorities with the actual enforcement data from Violation Tracker. The mismatch between the two is the “Enforcement Gap”, a powerful piece of evidence for a complaint.

Phase 2: The “Rules of Engagement” Protocol

This protocol is for understanding the legal and policy framework before launching a challenge.

Step 2.1: Find the Governing Policy: When planning to challenge a specific decision, use the advanced search to find the documents that govern it. Search for keywords related to the decision and filter by the responsible organisation. Filter the document type to Policy papers and Guidance.
Step 2.2: Forensic Document Analysis: Scrutinize the retrieved documents. We are looking for the specific rules, principles, and criteria the public body is supposed to apply when making a decision. For example, the CMA’s “prioritisation principles” are a key document for this.
Step 2.3: Identify the Procedural Failure: Compare the public body’s actual actions in our case with the required procedure outlined in their own guidance. Any deviation is a potential ground for a judicial review.

Part III: Application to COCOO Doctrines

This model is designed to provide the official government documents needed to hold public bodies to account.

Mind Map Doctrine	Application of the GOV.UK Advanced Search Model
Enforcement Gap	The “Enforcement Gap” Protocol (Phase 1) is the direct, systematic implementation of this core COCOO doctrine, using the government’s own documents to prove its failures.
Challenge Discrpower / JR2COURT	The “Rules of Engagement” Protocol (Phase 2) is essential for any judicial review. It allows us to find the specific rule that the public body has broken, which is the foundation of a successful legal challenge.
USP (Unsolicited Proposal)	By searching for a department’s strategic plans and policy papers, we can understand their stated problems and challenges. This allows us to craft a highly relevant USP that directly addresses their needs, using their own language and citing their own documents.
Tender Bids	Before bidding for any UK public contract, we must use this tool to research the procuring authority’s latest policy documents and reports. This ensures our bid is perfectly aligned with their current strategy and priorities.
Noisefilter	A minister’s speech is political noise. An official policy paper or corporate report published on GOV.UK is the government’s binding position. This tool allows us to filter the noise and find the evidence that is admissible in court.

Jun

2025

www.usa.congress.lobby.discl

SEARCHLINKS

Full URL: https://www.congress.gov/lobbying-disclosure

Strategic Imperative

The U.S. Congress Lobbying Disclosure database is the official, definitive record of who is attempting to influence federal policy in Washington D.C. For COCOO, its strategic value is immense, as it allows us to track the specific policy objectives of our U.S.-based adversaries and understand the political pressures being applied to key regulatory agencies like the FTC and SEC.

This platform is mission-critical for:

Informing our “Lobby Tools” Strategy: This register is a primary “Lobby Tool” for the U.S.¹. It provides granular intelligence on adversary spending, their chosen lobbying firms, and the specific legislation they are targeting.
Executing the “PTW (Political Time Window)” Doctrine: Identifying a surge in lobbying activity around a specific bill or regulatory issue is a clear signal that a “Political Time Window” is opening². This allows us to time our own interventions for maximum political and media impact.
Challenging U.S. Regulatory Decisions: The portal provides crucial context for our “Challenge Discrpower” strategy³. If a U.S. agency makes a decision that benefits a company, we can use this database to show that the company was simultaneously spending millions to lobby that same agency and the congressional committees that oversee it.
Competitor Analysis: Discovering that a competitor has hired a dozen different lobbying firms to target a single piece of legislation is a “Simple Indicator” of their strategic priorities and the existential threat they perceive from that bill⁴⁴.

Part I: The Search Platform’s Rules & Functionality

The platform is a powerful and granular search engine. Mastering its filters is key to extracting precise intelligence.

Primary Search Bar: The main search bar allows for keyword searches across all filings.
Structured Search & Filters: The most effective use of the platform comes from the structured search options, which include:
- Client Name: Search for the company that is paying for the lobbying.
- Lobbyist Name: Search for the individual lobbyist or the lobbying firm they work for.
- Lobbying Issues: A critical filter using a standardized list of topics (e.g., TAX – Taxation, CPT – Copyright/Patent/Trademark, TRD – Trade, FIN – Financial Institutions).
- Specific-issue: A keyword search within the detailed description of what is being lobbied on.
- Lobbied agency: A filter to see which executive branch agencies were targeted (e.g., Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC)).
- Bill number: Allows you to see every entity that has lobbied on a specific piece of legislation.

Part II: The COCOO Strategic Search Model for Congress.gov

This protocol provides a systematic workflow for any case involving U.S. federal policy or regulation.

Phase 1: Proactive & Thematic Monitoring

Step 1.1: Adversary Watchlist Search: On a quarterly basis, when new filings are released, we will run the names of our key U.S. adversaries through the Client Name search to get a complete picture of their lobbying activities.
Step 1.2: Thematic Issue Search: This is our primary proactive protocol. We will conduct recurring searches using the Lobbying Issues filter for topics central to our mission, such as ANT (Antitrust/Workplace), TRD (Trade), and FIN (Financial Institutions). This provides a comprehensive overview of the influence landscape on our core issues.
Step 1.3: Agency-Targeted Search: When preparing to engage with a specific U.S. regulator (e.g., the FTC), we will use the Lobbied agency filter to see a complete list of every company that has lobbied them in the past year. This reveals who has the most influence and access.

Phase 2: The “Legislative Intent” Analysis Protocol

Step 2.1: Bill-Specific Search: When a critical piece of legislation is introduced in Congress, we will use the Bill number search to identify every single organization lobbying on it.
Step 2.2: Map the Battle Lines: Categorize the lobbyists as either proponents or opponents of the bill. This allows us to map the coalition of interests on both sides of the issue and identify potential allies for our own campaigns.
Step 2.3: Analyze Lobbying Reports: For each key player, download their most recent lobbying report (LD-2 filing). Scrutinize the “Specific Lobbying Issues” section to see the precise arguments and outcomes they are advocating for.

Phase 3: Intelligence Synthesis & Strategic Action

Step 3.1: Expose Adversary Objectives: The lobbying report is a direct statement of an adversary’s strategic goals. If a dominant company is publicly claiming to support competitive markets while privately lobbying to weaken antitrust enforcement, we have found a clear contradiction that can be used in legal submissions and public affairs campaigns.
Step 3.2: Inform a USP: If our analysis reveals that multiple companies are lobbying Congress about a clear market failure that current legislation does not address, this is a trigger for a high-level USP. We can approach a congressional committee or a federal agency with a data-driven proposal for a new solution, positioning COCOO as an expert.

Part III: Application to COCOO Doctrines

This model directly executes our core strategies within the U.S. political and legal system.

Mind Map Doctrine	Application of the Congress.gov Lobbying Model
Lobby Tools	This platform is the definitive “Lobby Tool” for the U.S. federal level, providing unparalleled intelligence on the tactics, spending, and objectives of all players in the influence market⁵.
PTW (Political Time Window)	The database allows us to see when a specific bill is receiving a high volume of lobbying attention. This signals a “Political Time Window” where the issue is active and our intervention can have the most impact⁶.
Challenge Discrpower	This is a key tool to “Challenge the Discretionary Power” of U.S. agencies⁷. Evidence from this register showing intense lobbying of the FTC by companies before they approve a controversial merger adds significant weight to a legal challenge or a call for an investigation.
Noisefilter	A CEO’s testimony before Congress is political noise. Their company’s LD-2 filing, which details the millions spent lobbying on that exact issue, is the verifiable signal of their true intent⁸⁸⁸⁸.
Benchmarking / Competitor Analysis	The platform allows us to precisely benchmark lobbying expenditure. Knowing that Competitor A is spending $5 million per year lobbying on trade issues while Competitor B spends only $500,000 gives us a clear picture of their priorities and level of political risk.

Jun

2025

www.scot.lobby.reg

SEARCHLINKS

Full URL: https://www.lobbying.scot/

Strategic Imperative

The Scottish Parliament’s Lobbying Register provides a transparent record of regulated lobbying activities targeting Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs), Scottish Government Ministers, and senior civil servants. Its strategic value is in providing precise intelligence on who is attempting to influence policy on devolved matters, such as health, education, environmental regulation, and certain public contracts.

This platform is mission-critical for:

Identifying Regional “PTW (Political Time Window)”: The register provides the earliest possible warning of a concerted lobbying effort on a specific piece of devolved legislation or policy, allowing us to time our interventions for maximum impact within the Scottish political calendar.
Challenging Devolved Decisions: This is a primary tool for our “Challenge Discrpower” doctrine as it applies to the Scottish Government and its agencies. Evidence from the register can be used to question the impartiality of decisions made on devolved matters.
Informing our “Lobby Tools” Strategy: The register is a direct “Lobby Tool” for Scotland. It helps us understand the key players, their objectives, and the specific officials they are targeting, which informs our own public affairs strategy in Scotland.
Competitor Analysis: Discovering that a competitor is actively lobbying MSPs or the Scottish Government on a particular issue reveals their strategic priorities and potential vulnerabilities in the Scottish market.

Part I: The Search Platform’s Rules & Functionality

The platform is a filter-based search engine that is more dynamic than some other UK registers. It allows for detailed and specific queries.

Primary Search Fields: The Lobbying Register search allows you to search by:
- Lobbied person(s): Search for the specific MSP, Minister, or senior official who was the target of the lobbying.
- Organisation lobbying: Search for the name of the company or organisation that conducted the lobbying.
- Subject: A full-text keyword search for the subject matter of the lobbying. This is a highly effective tool.
Date Filter (Date of lobbying): A crucial filter to narrow the search to a specific time period.
Advanced Search Options: The combination of the above fields acts as an advanced search. For example, you can search for all lobbying of a specific Minister on a specific subject within a defined date range.
Data Available in Returns: Each lobbying “return” is a detailed record containing:
- The name of the individual who conducted the lobbying.
- The name of the organisation they represent.
- The name(s) of the person(s) lobbied.
- The date and location of the lobbying.
- A summary of the “Purpose of lobbying”. This is a critical intelligence field.

Part II: The COCOO Strategic Search Model for Lobbying.scot

This protocol provides a systematic workflow for any case involving devolved Scottish matters.

Phase 1: Proactive & Thematic Monitoring

Step 1.1: Adversary Watchlist Search: On a monthly basis, run the names of all our key adversaries with Scottish operations through the Organisation lobbying search field to track their activities.
Step 1.2: Thematic Subject Search: This is the most powerful proactive protocol. Conduct weekly searches using the Subject field for keywords relevant to our core interests (e.g., competition, procurement, environmental standards, planning). This will reveal all lobbying activity on these key topics.
Step 1.3: Official-Targeted Search: If a specific Scottish Minister or senior civil servant is responsible for a decision relevant to our case, run their name through the Lobbied person(s) search to see a complete record of who has been lobbying them.

Phase 2: The “Strategic Intent” Analysis Protocol

Step 2.1: Identify the Lobbying Purpose: When a relevant lobbying return is identified, the most important step is to carefully analyze the declared Purpose of lobbying. This is a direct statement of the company’s strategic objective.
Step 2.2: Map the Influence Campaign: Aggregate all returns filed by a single organisation. Are they lobbying multiple MSPs from different parties on the same subject? Are they meeting repeatedly with the same Special Adviser? This reveals the scale and focus of their influence campaign.
Step 2.3: Cross-Reference with other Scottish Intelligence: Combine the lobbying data with intelligence from other Scottish sources, such as public contract awards on Public Contracts Scotland or decisions by Scottish regulators (e.g., SEPA, Food Standards Scotland). The goal is to link the lobbying activity to a favourable official outcome.

Phase 3: Strategic Action

Step 3.1: Formulate a Counter-Submission: If a competitor is lobbying for a regulatory change that would disadvantage us, we can use the record from this register as evidence in a formal counter-submission to the relevant Scottish Parliament committee or Minister, exposing the commercial motivations behind the proposed change.
Step 3.2: Inform a Legal Challenge: In a judicial review of a decision made by a Scottish public body, the lobbying records can be submitted as evidence to argue that the decision was influenced by a one-sided, private lobbying campaign, thus undermining its impartiality.

Part III: Application to COCOO Doctrines

This model is designed to provide the tactical intelligence needed to operate effectively at the devolved Scottish level.

Mind Map Doctrine	Application of the Lobbying.scot Model
Lobby Tools	This register is a primary “Lobby Tool” for Scotland. It provides a transparent view of influence campaigns, allowing us to tailor our own strategy.
PTW (Political Time Window)	The register acts as an early warning system for policy debates in the Scottish Parliament. Identifying a lobbying campaign allows us to prepare our intervention to coincide with the relevant legislative process, maximizing our impact within the Scottish “Political Time Window”.
Challenge Discrpower	Evidence of intense, one-sided lobbying from this register can be used to “Challenge the Discretionary Power” of a Scottish Minister or agency, forming a key part of a submission arguing that their decision was improperly influenced.
Noisefilter	A company’s press release about its commitment to Scotland is noise. A lobbying return on this register detailing their efforts to weaken Scottish environmental standards is the verifiable signal that matters.
Benchmarking / Competitor Analysis	We can use the register to benchmark the level of political engagement and lobbying investment of our competitors in the Scottish market, providing a clearer picture of the political landscape.