Over the years, Inventive Journey has featured more than 800 stories from founders, business owners, and entrepreneurs. Weβve talked about getting started, making mistakes, changing direction, and figuring out what comes next.
Now, Iβm turning the microphone toward my own journey.
Iβm Devin Miller, founder of Miller IP Law. My path includes electrical engineering, Mandarin Chinese, law school, business school, a hydration-monitoring startup, and starting a law firm while still helping build another business.
Apparently, picking one thing would have been too straightforward.
This next chapter of Inventive Journey will follow that story, including what Iβm building today, what Iβm learning, and what happens when the plan meets reality.
β‘ Quick Summary
My entrepreneurial journey started with curiosity about how things work. That curiosity led me from engineering to intellectual property law, then into building businesses of my own.
A difficult marathon helped inspire a wearable hydration-monitoring device. A university competition helped turn that idea into a project. Prototypes, investment, patents, and new business arrangements followed. Eventually, I sold my ownership stake in an exit that, across the original group involved, was in the eight-figure range.
Along the way, I founded Miller IP Law to work with startups and small businesses.
Going forward, Inventive Journey will include weekly updates about that continuing journey: the wins, setbacks, decisions, family ventures, and changes happening in the legal industry, including AI.
π§ How I Got Here: Engineering, Entrepreneurship, and Law
I started at Brigham Young University with an interest in electrical engineering. Electronics, hardware, software, and understanding how things work naturally appealed to me. After my first year, I paused school to serve a two-year mission in Taiwan for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. When I returned, I continued engineering and added Mandarin Chinese as a second major.
As graduation approached, I started asking what kind of work I wanted to do. Engineering interested me, but I worried that some of the roles I was considering would involve spending years on one narrow part of a much larger project. That can be a great fit for many people. I wanted more variety and more involvement in deciding what to build.
Two paths caught my attention: entrepreneurship and intellectual property law. Business school offered a chance to understand financing, marketing, and running a company. Law offered debate, problem-solving, and a way to use my engineering background across different inventions. I chose a joint JD-MBA program at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, completing both degrees in four years.
During graduate school, I had a young family, including a two-year-old and a newborn, and worked about 20 hours a week as an intellectual property law clerk. Naturally, I decided this schedule needed a business competition. I joined three people from different backgrounds, and we developed a concept for a less smelly gym bag using a shark-skin-inspired approach to bacterial growth. We took second place.
The following year, our team reunited with a different idea. After struggling with dehydration during a marathon, I wondered whether a wrist-worn device could help monitor hydration. My dad, an electrical engineer with medical-device experience, helped me build an early prototype over Christmas break. I took it back to Cleveland and started testing it while exercising, complete with equipment that was considerably less elegant than a finished watch.
We took second place again. Afterward, I used my share of the winnings to buy out my teammatesβ interests, and the project continued beyond graduation. Back in Utah, I began my legal career while working with my dad and others to build the business. We raised investment, brought people on full-time, developed a wrist-worn prototype, and built a patent portfolio that I recall reaching roughly 30 to 40 patents.
As the technology developed, an opportunity emerged involving a diabetes-focused business. That transition included a new business, licensing arrangements, and people moving into new roles. Around the same period, I founded Miller IP Law. Years later, I sold my ownership stake in the wearables venture. The overall exit for the original group was in the eight-figure range. My personal proceeds were not eight figures, but it was a meaningful outcome that gave me room to focus on the firm and other ventures.
π Business Competitions: Three Lessons Beyond the Trophy
1. The gym bag taught me to build across disciplines
Our first team brought together people who approached problems differently. That helped us develop an idea none of us necessarily would have pursued alone.
The experience also showed that a competition can be valuable even when the project does not become your long-term business. We gained experience working together, developing a concept, and presenting it.
2. The hydration device taught me to look past the ranking
Our second-place finish did not match my enthusiasm for the technology. I thought we had something worth pursuing, even without the first-place trophy.
A judging panel gives you feedback about a presentation and an idea at a particular moment. Whether that idea deserves years of work requires a much broader decision.
3. Moving beyond the competition required an ownership decision
After graduation, our teammates were heading toward different locations and careers. Continuing with the same group would have been difficult.
Buying out their interests gave us a way to move forward. The competition had brought us together, but the next stage required deciding who wanted to keep building and how that would work.
π¬ What Building Both Businesses Taught Me
One recurring theme in my journey is that I enjoy variety. That preference helped shape my education, my legal career, and the businesses Iβve pursued. It also means I have to keep asking whether a new opportunity deserves my attention.
Building the wearable business made the limits of spare-time work clear. We made progress while everyone had other jobs, but eventually the business needed dedicated people. More enthusiasm would not create more hours in the week.
Investment helped us bring people on full-time and develop the technology. It also brought additional owners and expectations. Raising money changed how we could operate, along with what we needed to deliver.
Another important distinction was the gap between a functional prototype and a manufacturable product. Getting something to work was a milestone. Getting it ready to produce and sell required more development, resources, and decisions.
My legal career helped me recognize the work I enjoyed most. I worked on interesting technologies for large companies, but I particularly liked working with startups and small businesses. Those clients often wanted help thinking through decisions alongside the legal work.
Starting Miller IP meant taking on another set of responsibilities. Legal experience did not automatically teach me everything about marketing, sales, hiring, or running a firm. I had to work through those challenges while continuing to serve clients and participate in the wearable venture.
Eventually, selling my ownership stake created room for other priorities. I wanted to focus more on the firm, explore other opportunities, and build businesses with my kids. A successful venture can still reach a point where your own role needs to change.
Today, my work includes a mix of legal matters, software projects, family businesses, and new ideas. That variety is what I wanted years ago when I was considering my career. The challenge is making sure the variety stays useful and manageable.
π οΈ A Step-by-Step Guide for Founders Facing Similar Decisions
Step 1: Identify a problem you understand
My hydration idea came from a frustrating personal experience. That gave me a starting point and a reason to care.
Your own experience can reveal a problem worth investigating. The next question is whether other people experience it and care enough to seek a solution.
Step 2: Test the most important assumption
For our early prototype, the question was whether we could observe meaningful signals that might relate to hydration.
Choose a test that helps you learn something specific. A polished presentation can wait if the underlying idea still needs evidence.
Step 3: Decide who will keep building
A team formed for a competition may have different goals after graduation. Friends, classmates, and collaborators can all have different expectations.
Discuss ownership, contributions, and future involvement while everyone is available to have that conversation.
Step 4: Match resources to the next milestone
Ask what the business needs to accomplish next and what that will require.
For us, moving beyond part-time development required dedicated people. Moving toward a manufacturable product required another level of resources.
Step 5: Revisit the direction as you learn
The original use case may lead to another opportunity. In our case, discussions around diabetes-related applications helped open a different path for the technology.
Evaluate the new direction on its own merits, including the work and evidence still needed.
Step 6: Review your role along with the business
A company can change, and so can your interests.
Periodically ask whether you want to keep doing your current work, take on a different role, or make room for another priority.
βοΈ The Debate: Stay Focused or Build Across Several Ventures?
π― Position One: Concentrating on one business gives it more consistent attention.
A single venture can already fill a founderβs schedule. Product development, customers, cash flow, hiring, and operations each create demands that deserve attention.
Splitting time makes those demands harder to manage. A problem in one business can interrupt progress in another, even when both opportunities are worthwhile.
My wearable venture reached a point where part-time contributions were limiting progress. Bringing people on full-time helped address that constraint.
For founders considering another project, the practical question is whether the current business has enough support to keep moving. Interest in a new idea does not answer that question.
π± Position Two: Working across ventures can create useful connections and opportunities.
My engineering, legal, and business experience informed one another. I could understand technical development, contribute to intellectual property work, and participate in business decisions.
The variety also helped me identify what I enjoyed. Working with different technologies and clients reinforced my interest in building a firm for startups and small businesses.
Some projects grew out of needs inside the law firm. Tools developed for internal use later became opportunities to build something separate.
The approach has worked best when I have paid attention to who is responsible for each venture and what it needs next. Multiple businesses still require clear ownership of the work.
β Common Questions & Answers
Why change Inventive Journey after more than 800 founder stories?
I enjoy following businesses over time. Hearing an origin story is useful, and seeing the next decision, challenge, or adjustment adds another layer. I want to bring that ongoing view to my own journey.
Are guest interviews going away completely?
We may still feature other peopleβs journeys occasionally. The main focus will shift toward my experiences building Miller IP and other businesses.
Did the wearable business start as a polished product?
No. The first prototype involved equipment I strapped on while exercising and collecting data. It helped us explore the idea, but it was a long way from a finished consumer product.
Did I personally receive eight figures from the exit?
No. The eight-figure description refers to the overall outcome for the original group involved. My personal proceeds were less than that.
What will the weekly updates cover?
I plan to share business developments, lessons from earlier decisions, mistakes, successes, and what weβre seeing at Miller IP. AIβs impact on the legal industry will also be part of the conversation.
π§ Potential Business Hazards
1. Treating early results as a finished answer
Our initial testing gave us reasons to keep exploring. It did not establish that every proposed application would work or that the product was ready for market.
Founders need to distinguish encouraging evidence from completed validation. That distinction matters when planning development, talking with investors, and describing a productβs capabilities.
2. Leaving ownership unclear
Projects often begin informally, especially among classmates or friends. As the opportunity becomes more serious, uncertainty about who owns what can become a significant obstacle.
Clarify the relevant agreements and contributions before a financing, licensing discussion, or exit forces the issue.
3. Underestimating the next development stage
A working prototype can make a product feel close to launch. Manufacturing, testing, reliability, and other requirements may still demand considerable work.
Build the next plan around the remaining tasks. The prototype is evidence of progress, but it does not complete the budget.
4. Sharing an invention before considering filing strategy
Competitions and public demonstrations can create exposure for an idea. They can also affect patent rights. The United States provides a limited grace period for certain inventor-originated disclosures, while many other countries may deny protection when disclosure comes before filing. Review the timing before presenting technical details publicly. USPTO
5. Confusing a busy schedule with a sustainable business
I have balanced legal work, product development, and multiple businesses. That does not mean every task should stay on my plate.
If everything depends on the founder finding another spare hour, the business may need a different staffing plan, a narrower scope, or a change in priorities.
π§ Myths & Misconceptions
Myth: Winning a business competition proves you have a business.
A competition can help you develop an idea and explain it clearly. It cannot answer every question about customers, manufacturing, costs, or long-term demand.
We took second place twice. The work after the competition determined what happened next.
Myth: An eight-figure exit means one founder pocketed eight figures.
The overall outcome and an individual founderβs proceeds are different figures.
In my case, the eight-figure description covered the original groupβs overall outcome. I did not personally receive eight figures.
Myth: You need to choose one professional identity forever.
My career has included engineering, law, entrepreneurship, and running a firm. Those interests have connected in useful ways.
That does not make pursuing everything at once a good plan. It means your background can support a path that changes as you learn what you want to do.
π Books & Podcasts to Explore
These resources offer additional perspectives on the questions raised by this journey.
The Lean Startup by Eric Ries
Useful for thinking about experiments, learning from early products, and deciding whether to continue or change direction. Its build-measure-learn approach connects with the challenge of turning an idea into something you can test.
Explore The Lean Startup theleanstartup.com
The Mom Test by Rob Fitzpatrick
A practical resource for talking with potential customers and gathering useful feedback. It is particularly relevant when you need to move beyond encouragement and understand whether a problem matters to buyers.
Explore The Mom Test momtestbook.com
How I Built This with Guy Raz
A podcast featuring founder stories, including the uncertainty, setbacks, and decisions behind well-known businesses. It offers another way to examine how entrepreneurial journeys unfold over time.
Explore How I Built This podcasting.voxmedia.com
π Three Legal Cases With Lessons for Founders
These cases provide additional legal context. They were not disputes involving my businesses.
Stanford v. Roche: Ownership deserves attention
In Stanford v. Roche, 563 U.S. 776 (2011), the Supreme Court held that the Bayh-Dole Act did not automatically give a federal contractor ownership of federally funded inventions. The dispute involved competing agreements concerning an inventorβs rights.
For founders, the practical lesson is to examine how invention rights reach the business. Participation in a project and ownership of its intellectual property require careful attention to the relevant facts and agreements.
Read the case law.cornell.edu
KSR v. Teleflex: A new combination still faces scrutiny
In KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme Court rejected an overly rigid approach to evaluating whether an invention was obvious. The dispute concerned an adjustable vehicle pedal combined with an electronic sensor.
For a founder combining existing components, the patent question requires more than showing that the exact product has not previously been sold. The differences from existing technology and the reasons someone would combine it matter.
Read the case law.cornell.edu
Alice v. CLS Bank: Adding a computer may be insufficient
In Alice v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), the Supreme Court held that the claims at issue were directed to an abstract idea and that generic computer implementation did not make them patent eligible.
For software founders, describing an idea as computerized does not resolve the eligibility question. Evaluating the claimed implementation requires examining what the invention actually does and how it does it.
Read the case LII / Legal Information Institute
π Key Takeaways
- Your own frustrations can reveal a starting point. My hydration idea began with a difficult marathon.
- A competition result is one piece of feedback. Second place did not end the project.
- Each stage creates different demands. Prototypes, full-time development, and manufacturing required different resources.
- Your role can change as the business develops. Selling my stake made room for other priorities.
- Choose work you want to keep doing. Working with startups and small businesses helped shape Miller IP.
π€ Working on Your Own Next Chapter?
I enjoy working with founders because I understand how many decisions compete for attention. You may be developing a product, considering a patent, choosing a brand, or trying to figure out which question to address first.
At Miller IP, we can discuss your patent or trademark questions, clarify the options, and help you consider a path that fits your business. You do not need a perfect pitch deck to start the conversation.
Schedule a free consultation at strategymeeting.com
You can also explore more entrepreneurial stories and resources at inventiveunicorn.com
ποΈ What Comes Next on Inventive Journey
This episode sets the stage. Future updates will go deeper into the decisions behind the businesses, the mistakes I have made, the things that have worked, and what Iβm trying next.
That includes Miller IP, businesses with my kids, software projects, and the changes AI is bringing to the legal industry.
I have a typical week, but any given day can look quite different. That was part of what I wanted when I first started considering my career, and it continues to make the work interesting.
After more than 800 founder stories, Iβm ready to share more of mine as it unfolds.
Hopefully, Iβll remember to stay hydrated this time.
