Do not assume a new filing resolves the actual immigration evidence question. Intellectual-property strategy and L-1B preparation serve different purposes.
Clarify relevant preparation costs
Ask what existing evidence supports the knowledge and employment claim and what further review is needed. Separate official immigration charges, professional work and intellectual-property expenses. No filing purchase guarantees L classification.
Ask specifically what a new filing would prove that the current evidence does not already show, since protecting an invention commercially is a different question from proving that a particular employee understands it at an advanced level. Intellectual-property filings often run on a much longer timeline than an immigration petition, so starting one mainly to support a pending case risks missing the filing deadline entirely rather than helping it. Get separate professional advice and separate cost and timeline estimates for the two matters, since combining them into one engagement can hide the fact that they are moving at very different speeds.
Ask whether existing internal records already describe what the employee understands well enough that a new filing would add little beyond expense and delay. Ask patent or trademark counsel to state, in writing, the realistic timeline for the filing under consideration, since that estimate alone often determines whether the effort can meaningfully affect a case that is already moving toward a decision. Where the timelines clearly do not align, spend the available budget instead on organizing the internal material that already documents the employee's understanding, since that work supports the pending case directly.