Cross-registry clearance searches with conflict risk scoring and strategic analysis.
View Service →Structured, deadline-driven response drafting support for examiner refusals and objections.
View Service →Proactive watch reports identifying similar marks, marketplace use and portfolio risk.
View Service →Seamless multi-jurisdiction applications, class audits and prosecution.
View Service →Research-led support for mark adoption, use, filing strategy and portfolio growth.
View Service →Cross-registry clearance searches with conflict risk scoring and strategic analysis.
Structured, deadline-driven response drafting support for examiner refusals and objections.
Proactive watch reports identifying similar marks, marketplace use and portfolio risk.
Seamless multi-jurisdiction applications, class audits and prosecution.
Research-led support for mark adoption, use, filing strategy and portfolio growth.
Research-led patent searches, trademark support, technical analysis, drafting and IP operations for inventors, R&D teams and global businesses.
Technical intelligence, organized for action.
IPSeekers supports inventors, R&D teams, IP departments and patent professionals with patent searches, trademark research, drafting support, technical analysis and portfolio operations.
We work as a specialist IP research and operations partner. Our role is to make technical records clearer, filing workflows faster and portfolio decisions better informed.
Field Note / 01
Every engagement begins inside the technology. Our analysts deconstruct systems, claims and commercial context before a search string is written.
See the capability
Field Note / 02
Prior art, claim charts and prosecution records are connected into a clear technical record, ready for IP teams, product leaders or examiner review.
See the capability
Field Note / 03
We find white space, monitor competitors and keep every deadline visible so the portfolio continues to create strategic and commercial value.
See the capabilitySearch, dispute support, analytics and licensing research — every patent workflow engineered with technical precision.
Trademark searches, filing support and monitoring — structured across the registries that matter.
Cross-registry clearance searches with conflict risk scoring and strategic analysis.
Explore Service →Structured, deadline-driven response drafting support for examiner refusals and objections.
Explore Service →Proactive watch reports identifying similar marks, marketplace use and portfolio risk.
Explore Service →Seamless multi-jurisdiction applications, class audits and prosecution.
Explore Service →Research-led support for mark adoption, use, filing strategy and portfolio growth.
Explore Service →Precision administrative IP infrastructure — the scales, the deadlines and the paperwork, perfectly balanced.
Scroll through the research layer behind a stronger IP decision.
<built-in method copy of dict object at 0x7fe234867d80>
<built-in method copy of dict object at 0x7fe234867fc0>
<built-in method copy of dict object at 0x7fe234867f40>
<built-in method copy of dict object at 0x7fe234864700>
Our structured 4-phase technical workflow guarantees forensic depth and zero missed deadlines.
We enter the technical record, interview the team and connect commercial objectives to the intended right.
Precision multi-registry searches expose hidden structural risk, close references and useful white space.
Claims, drawings and evidence are assembled into a filing record designed for clarity and prosecution leverage.
Responses, renewals, IDS references and deadlines are monitored continuously across the active portfolio.
“A valuable idea becomes stronger when its evidence is clear.”
We combine patent research, trademark intelligence, technical documentation and operational control around every valuable idea.
Protect your assetsLong-term relationships are built on technical accuracy, responsive collaboration and a record that is ready when scrutiny arrives.
“The search intelligence from IPSeekers gave our product team a much clearer view of the prior-art landscape before launch.”
“Their docketing and IDS support removed hours of manual checking while making every portfolio deadline easier to track.”
“Their office action research and technical breakdowns are consistently structured, responsive and easy for our patent team to review.”
Tell us what you are protecting, challenging or preparing. A specialist will respond with the right next step.
Illustrative multi-page work-product previews
Matter: Aether Health — 'VeriRing' wearable with on-chain event log
Prepared for: Aether Health (fictional) · Pre-provisional filing strategy
Aether Health is preparing a provisional application for a finger-worn IoT ring that captures pulse, SpO₂, temperature and motion, signs each reading with a device private key, and anchors a Merkle root of the day's readings to a public, Ethereum-compatible blockchain so that the record cannot be silently altered. The client asked whether the combination is new and which features should anchor the independent claim.
The combination of (a) ring-derived vitals, (b) device-signed readings, and (c) Merkle-root anchoring tuned for low-power ring hardware is NOT disclosed by a single reference. Filing is recommended; the claim should anchor on the battery-aware Merkle-batching method.
The novel seam is the batching/signing policy, not any individual block.
We searched patents, applications and non-patent literature across four concept buckets and their intersections. Each bucket used a controlled-vocabulary spine (IPC/CPC + US/EP classification) and a free-text/vector expansion. Cross-bucket searches were essential because the novelty is in the intersection, not any single bucket.
| Bucket | Classifications (representative) | Example keyword string | Hits reviewed |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Wearable vitals ring | A61B 5/024, A61B 5/1455, A61B 5/00 | ("ring" OR "finger-worn") AND (PPG OR SpO2 OR pulse) | 620 |
| B. Blockchain health records | G16H 10/60, G06F 21/64, H04L 9/32 | (blockchain OR "distributed ledger") AND ("health record" OR EHR) | 840 |
| C. IoT data integrity / signing | H04L 9/32, H04L 9/00 | ("Merkle" OR "hash chain") AND (sensor OR IoT OR device) | 510 |
| D. Low-power batching | G06F 1/32, H04W 52/02 | (batch OR coalesce) AND BLE AND sensor AND signing | 260 |
| A × C (intersection) | — | ring AND (sign OR Merkle OR blockchain) | 48 |
| B × D (intersection) | — | blockchain AND health AND (battery OR low-power OR batching) | 32 |
| Ref | Document | Relevance | What it shows | Gap vs. claim 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | US 10,xxx,xxx B2 (fictional) — 'Wearable ring with encrypted BLE upload to a cloud EHR' | Y | Ring hardware and vitals capture; TLS to cloud | No device-signed readings; no Merkle/blockchain anchor |
| D2 | US 2021/0xxxxxx A1 — 'Blockchain-anchored electronic health records' | Y | Hash of EHR batch anchored on-chain; provider signatures | Hospital system, not a ring; no battery-aware batching |
| D3 | US 10,yyy,yyy B2 — 'Secure element in wearable for payload signing' | Y | ATECC608-style signing in a wearable | No blockchain or Merkle batching |
| D4 | WO 2022/xxxxxx — 'Low-power sensor batch upload over BLE' | A | Adaptive batching to save battery | No signing or anchor |
| D5 | IEEE paper (2023) — 'Merkle proofs for IoT telemetry' | A | Merkle batching for constrained IoT | Not a ring, not health; no on-device key story |
| D6 | CN 11xxxxxxx A — 'Blockchain wristband for insurance' | Y | Wearable + blockchain (insurance focus) | Wristband, continuous streaming, no Merkle batching |
No reference combines a ring form factor, an on-device secure element that signs each reading, and a battery-aware Merkle-batching policy that controls when roots are anchored based on ring charge state and BLE availability.
1. A wearable health-monitoring device, comprising: a finger-worn housing; at least one physiological sensor; a secure element storing a device private key; and a controller that signs batches of sensor readings and causes a Merkle root of a day of readings to be anchored to a public blockchain when a power condition is met …
| Limitation | D1 | D2 | D3 | D4 | D6 | Mapping note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Finger-worn ring with vitals | Y | — | A | — | — | High |
| Secure element storing device key | — | — | Y | — | — | High |
| Signing each batch of readings | — | Y | Y | — | Y | Med |
| Merkle root of a day of readings | — | Y | — | — | — | Med |
| Anchor root to public blockchain | — | Y | — | — | Y | Med |
| Anchor triggered by a power condition | — | — | — | A | — | — |
Verdict color key: RED=met by single ref · AMBER=met only in combination · GREEN=not disclosed.
Novelty: No single reference discloses all six limitations. The closest combination D2 + D3 + D6 does not include the battery-aware triggering of the anchor, which the specification ties to a measurable improvement (41% fewer BLE wakeups over a 7-day period in Aether's bench data).
Inventive step / non-obviousness: A §103 attack is plausible using D2 (blockchain EHR) + D3 (wearable signing) + D4 (battery batching). The counter-arguments are (i) D2 is a hospital-server architecture with no motivation to move signing to a ring, and (ii) D4's batching optimises radio use but gives no reason to gate a blockchain anchor on a charge threshold. The 41% battery improvement is strong secondary consideration.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
Matter: VoltAero Mobility — 40 Ah sulfide cell for 2027 EV platform
Prepared for: VoltAero Mobility (fictional) · US/EU/CN launch clearance
VoltAero is preparing a 40 Ah sulfide solid-state cell for a 2027 EV. The FTO covers unexpired US, EP and CN claims that could read on the cell stack, the isostatic pressing process, and the module-level thermal barrier. Pending applications are listed as watch items rather than asserted risk.
Conditional GO. Two patents (P-07, P-14) read on the pressing process. With process workaround #2 (warm isostatic at 180 °C) and a license option on P-22, residual risk drops to LOW for the US/EU launch. CN requires a follow-on opinion due to a local standard-essential filing.
| Triage | Count | Definition | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| RED | 3 | Every limitation met literally or under DOE | License, design-around, or counsel opinion |
| AMBER | 9 | One or more limitations arguable | Narrow construction + workaround |
| GREEN | 22 | At least one required limitation absent | Document non-infringement |
| WATCH | 4 | Pending application / reexam | Quarterly monitoring |
Claim 1: A method of making a solid-state cell, comprising: dry-mixing a sulfide solid electrolyte; warm-pressing at 200–250 °C and 200–300 MPa; and forming a bi-polar stack without an intermediate current collector.
| Limitation | VoltAero process | Assessment | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry-mix sulfide electrolyte | Planetary dry-mixing of Li6PS5Cl | {'verdict': 'high'} | |
| Warm-press 200–250 °C / 200–300 MPa | 220 °C / 250 MPa isostatic | {'verdict': 'high'} | |
| No intermediate current collector | Al-clad bi-polar plate only | {'verdict': 'high'} | |
| Produces a cell of >30 Ah | 40 Ah cell | {'verdict': 'high'} |
P-07 is the single highest-risk patent and expires 2038. All four steps are met literally.
P-14 reads on the thermal barrier; P-22 covers the warm-isostatic recipe. Both can be avoided by the workarounds in §5, but P-07's bi-polar-stack limitation is hard to avoid without a hardware redesign.
| # | Workaround | Avoids | Effort | Trade-off |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Add a thin (1 µm) carbon intermediate layer on the bi-polar plate | P-07 | Med | +$0.08 / cell; requires line qualification |
| 2 | Switch to two-step warm isostatic: 180 °C press + 240 °C anneal | P-07, P-22 | Med | 5% lower throughput; known in literature |
| 3 | Replace ceramic-fibre barrier with aerogel blanket | P-14 | Low | Module thickness +1.2 mm |
| 4 | License P-07 family / take a covenant not to sue | P-07 | Commercial | Preserves design; 6-mo negotiation estimate |
Adopt workaround #2 (process-only change, no hardware requalification) and open a covenant discussion with the P-07 owner as a parallel track. This keeps the 2027 launch date and lowers all RED findings to GREEN.
| Output | Format | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Executive report | Searchable PDF | Opinion, tables and charts for the decision-maker |
| Working copy | DOCX | Editable by counsel for amendments and opinions |
| Source workbook | XLSX | Every reference, classification, family and status row |
| Appendix | PDF/A | Pinpoint copies of material references and NPL |
| Claim/claim-chart file | DOCX + XLSX | Color-coded element mapping with comments |
Matter: GlideMobility — dashboard housing for a folding e-scooter
Prepared for: GlideMobility (fictional) · US/EP design filing
GlideMobility asked whether the ornamental design of its folding e-scooter dashboard housing (a teardrop enclosure with a recessed display and an integrated folding latch) is free to file in the US and EU. Design patents protect visual, not functional, features; the search therefore focused on shape, surface ornamentation and overall visual impression.
No located design creates the same overall visual impression as the Glide dashboard. Filing is recommended in USD and Registered Community Design (RCD).
| Ref | Design | Owner | Country | Similarity | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS-1 | US D9xx,xxx S | Competitor A (fictional) | US | Low–Med | Rectangular housing, no recessed display |
| DS-2 | RCD 00xxxxxx-0001 | Competitor B (fictional) | EU | Med | Rounded but no integrated latch; thicker profile |
| DS-3 | JP Des. 1,6xx,xxx | Competitor C (fictional) | JP | Low | Sharp creases, different aspect ratio |
| DS-4 | US D9yy,yyy S | Competitor D (fictional) | US | Low | Circular dial form factor |
| DS-5 | KR 30-xxxxxx | Competitor E (fictional) | KR | Low | Separate latch, distinct surface lines |
A design-pair rubric scored (i) overall shape, (ii) proportions, (iii) surface treatment, and (iv) distinctive features, 0–5 each. The Glide dashboard scored ≤14/20 against every reference (the 'ordinary observer' threshold is ~16).
Searches combine classification-driven retrieval, free-text and semantic expansion, assignee/inventor harvesting, forward-and-backward citation snowballing and a non-patent literature sweep. Each reference is independently ranked by two reviewers.
| Stage | What we did | Sources | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope freeze | Confirm claims/features, dates, jurisdictions and decision to support | Client disclosure, inventors | Signed scope memo |
| Classification search | CPC/IPC/FI/F-term spine plus cross-class checks | USPTO, EPO, WIPO, CNIPA, JPO | Classification log |
| Keyword + semantic | Boolean strings + transformer-based vector search over 100M+ abstracts | PatBase, Orbit, Lens, Google Patents | Search strings log |
| Snowballing | Two citation generations forward/backward; assignee and inventor harvesting | Lens, PatBase | Candidate list |
| NPL & product sweep | Peer-reviewed, arXiv, standards, product manuals, teardowns, FDA/SEC | IEEE, ACM, arXiv, standards, web | NPL appendix |
| Ranking & QA | Two-reviewer X/Y/A coding; family & legal-status cross-check | Internal | Color-coded chart |
Findings are color-coded by relevance. References are coded X (anticipates), Y (combines for obviousness) or A (background). Risk ratings reflect the impact on a typical independent claim.
RED findings must be addressed by claim amendment, design-around or opinion before reliance. AMBER findings require a documented position. GREEN findings are listed for completeness and IDS duty.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
Matter: solo founder — 'AI resume screener with bias scoring'
Prepared for: confidential founder (fictional) · 48-hour pre-spend screen
The founder wanted a 48-hour answer before spending $25k on a prototype: does a single reference already describe AI resume screening with a bias/explainability score? The knock-out is deliberately broad and fast; it is not a full patentability opinion.
Ref K-1 (US 10,xxx,xxx B2) discloses AI resume screening with an explainable fairness score. The core idea is KNOCKED OUT. Pivot toward the founder's differentiator (state-law-aware redaction) before spending on a filing.
| Ref | What it is | Why it knocks out | Possible pivot |
|---|---|---|---|
| K-1 | US 10,xxx,xxx B2 — AI hiring platform with bias score (fictional) | Independent claim 1 recites exactly: parse resume, score fit, compute bias, output explanation | State-law-aware redaction; role-specific adversarial testing |
| K-2 | US 2022/0xxxxxx A1 — Recruiter assistant with explainable AI (fictional) | Discloses GPT-style summary + fairness dashboard, pending | Narrow to a vertical (e.g. healthcare licensing) |
Searches combine classification-driven retrieval, free-text and semantic expansion, assignee/inventor harvesting, forward-and-backward citation snowballing and a non-patent literature sweep. Each reference is independently ranked by two reviewers.
| Stage | What we did | Sources | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope freeze | Confirm claims/features, dates, jurisdictions and decision to support | Client disclosure, inventors | Signed scope memo |
| Classification search | CPC/IPC/FI/F-term spine plus cross-class checks | USPTO, EPO, WIPO, CNIPA, JPO | Classification log |
| Keyword + semantic | Boolean strings + transformer-based vector search over 100M+ abstracts | PatBase, Orbit, Lens, Google Patents | Search strings log |
| Snowballing | Two citation generations forward/backward; assignee and inventor harvesting | Lens, PatBase | Candidate list |
| NPL & product sweep | Peer-reviewed, arXiv, standards, product manuals, teardowns, FDA/SEC | IEEE, ACM, arXiv, standards, web | NPL appendix |
| Ranking & QA | Two-reviewer X/Y/A coding; family & legal-status cross-check | Internal | Color-coded chart |
Findings are color-coded by relevance. References are coded X (anticipates), Y (combines for obviousness) or A (background). Risk ratings reflect the impact on a typical independent claim.
RED findings must be addressed by claim amendment, design-around or opinion before reliance. AMBER findings require a documented position. GREEN findings are listed for completeness and IDS duty.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Output | Format | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Executive report | Searchable PDF | Opinion, tables and charts for the decision-maker |
| Working copy | DOCX | Editable by counsel for amendments and opinions |
| Source workbook | XLSX | Every reference, classification, family and status row |
| Appendix | PDF/A | Pinpoint copies of material references and NPL |
| Claim/claim-chart file | DOCX + XLSX | Color-coded element mapping with comments |
Matter: CarbonGate — next-gen amine sorbent R&D planning
Prepared for: CarbonGate R&D (fictional) · 5-year technical roadmap
A broad technical survey of direct-air-capture (DAC) sorbents — amine-functionalized silicas, MOFs, metal oxides and alkaline solutions — covering 2015–2025. The goal is to position CarbonGate's R&D program against the current art, identify leading assignees, and surface technical bottlenecks worth solving.
| Branch | Sub-branches | Families | Maturity | Who leads |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amine on silica | PEI/silica, amine-grafted, diamines | 410 | Pilot | Climeworks-like, university labs |
| MOF/zeolite | Mg-MOF-74, mmen-Mg2(dobpdc), HKUST-1 | 360 | Lab | Academic consortia |
| Metal oxide / carbonate | Ca-looping, Na/Ca hydroxides | 220 | Demonstration | Heirloom-like, utilities |
| Alkaline liquid | KOH/NaOH, bipolar ED regeneration | 170 | Commercial | Carbon Engineering-like |
| Electrochemical | Redox carriers, pH-swing | 80 | Lab | Start-ups, DOE labs |
Searches combine classification-driven retrieval, free-text and semantic expansion, assignee/inventor harvesting, forward-and-backward citation snowballing and a non-patent literature sweep. Each reference is independently ranked by two reviewers.
| Stage | What we did | Sources | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope freeze | Confirm claims/features, dates, jurisdictions and decision to support | Client disclosure, inventors | Signed scope memo |
| Classification search | CPC/IPC/FI/F-term spine plus cross-class checks | USPTO, EPO, WIPO, CNIPA, JPO | Classification log |
| Keyword + semantic | Boolean strings + transformer-based vector search over 100M+ abstracts | PatBase, Orbit, Lens, Google Patents | Search strings log |
| Snowballing | Two citation generations forward/backward; assignee and inventor harvesting | Lens, PatBase | Candidate list |
| NPL & product sweep | Peer-reviewed, arXiv, standards, product manuals, teardowns, FDA/SEC | IEEE, ACM, arXiv, standards, web | NPL appendix |
| Ranking & QA | Two-reviewer X/Y/A coding; family & legal-status cross-check | Internal | Color-coded chart |
Findings are color-coded by relevance. References are coded X (anticipates), Y (combines for obviousness) or A (background). Risk ratings reflect the impact on a typical independent claim.
RED findings must be addressed by claim amendment, design-around or opinion before reliance. AMBER findings require a documented position. GREEN findings are listed for completeness and IDS duty.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Output | Format | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Executive report | Searchable PDF | Opinion, tables and charts for the decision-maker |
| Working copy | DOCX | Editable by counsel for amendments and opinions |
| Source workbook | XLSX | Every reference, classification, family and status row |
| Appendix | PDF/A | Pinpoint copies of material references and NPL |
| Claim/claim-chart file | DOCX + XLSX | Color-coded element mapping with comments |
Matter: MedDevice startup — 6-month allowance target
Prepared for: confidential medtech startup (fictional)
A PESD-ready search supporting a Track One (prioritized examination) utility filing for a wearable auto-injector with dose-detection and a companion app. The deliverable is the preexamination search document, a claim chart against the six closest references, and a claim set already amended around the closest art.
| Claim element | Closest ref | Distinction in spec |
|---|---|---|
| Dose-capture via Hall-effect on plunger | D1 | D1 uses optical; Hall is lower power and tamper-evident (¶0042) |
| BLE pairing to phone with dose log | D2 | D2 is tethered USB only |
| Temperature excursion lockout | D3 | D3 warns only; our claim locks the actuator |
| Auto-injector spring geometry | D4 | D4 is a pen, not spring auto-injector |
| Dose-reminder schedule | D5 | Generic scheduling; no missed-dose escalation |
| Tamper evidence log | D6 | D6 is cloud log only; ours is device-signed |
By conceding only what D1–D6 already disclose and writing the independent claim around Hall-effect dose-capture plus temperature lockout, we expect a first Office Action with one or two 103 rejections that can be addressed with prosecution already drafted.
Searches combine classification-driven retrieval, free-text and semantic expansion, assignee/inventor harvesting, forward-and-backward citation snowballing and a non-patent literature sweep. Each reference is independently ranked by two reviewers.
| Stage | What we did | Sources | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope freeze | Confirm claims/features, dates, jurisdictions and decision to support | Client disclosure, inventors | Signed scope memo |
| Classification search | CPC/IPC/FI/F-term spine plus cross-class checks | USPTO, EPO, WIPO, CNIPA, JPO | Classification log |
| Keyword + semantic | Boolean strings + transformer-based vector search over 100M+ abstracts | PatBase, Orbit, Lens, Google Patents | Search strings log |
| Snowballing | Two citation generations forward/backward; assignee and inventor harvesting | Lens, PatBase | Candidate list |
| NPL & product sweep | Peer-reviewed, arXiv, standards, product manuals, teardowns, FDA/SEC | IEEE, ACM, arXiv, standards, web | NPL appendix |
| Ranking & QA | Two-reviewer X/Y/A coding; family & legal-status cross-check | Internal | Color-coded chart |
Findings are color-coded by relevance. References are coded X (anticipates), Y (combines for obviousness) or A (background). Risk ratings reflect the impact on a typical independent claim.
RED findings must be addressed by claim amendment, design-around or opinion before reliance. AMBER findings require a documented position. GREEN findings are listed for completeness and IDS duty.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Output | Format | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Executive report | Searchable PDF | Opinion, tables and charts for the decision-maker |
| Working copy | DOCX | Editable by counsel for amendments and opinions |
| Source workbook | XLSX | Every reference, classification, family and status row |
| Appendix | PDF/A | Pinpoint copies of material references and NPL |
| Claim/claim-chart file | DOCX + XLSX | Color-coded element mapping with comments |
Matter: prior-art support for a §102/§103 invalidity content
Prepared for: outside litigation counsel (fictional)
An NPL dossier supporting a defense invalidity contention against a patent claiming retrieval-augmented generation over long patent claims. The search covers arXiv preprints, peer-reviewed ACL/EMNLP/NeurIPS papers, standards (W3C, ISO), and open-source releases with date-pinned commits.
| Ref | Public date | How verified | §102 date |
|---|---|---|---|
| NPL-01 | 2020-05-12 | arXiv v1 + DOI NeurIPS proceedings | Pre-filing printed publication |
| NPL-02 | 2020-04-12 | arXiv v1 + ACL Anthology DOI | Pre-filing printed publication |
| NPL-03 | 2021-11-02 | arXiv v1; archived at archive.ph | Pre-filing printed publication |
| NPL-04 | 2013-04-30 | W3C recommendation date | Pre-filing printed publication |
| NPL-05 | 2021-08-04 | GitHub commit SHA + Wayback | Pre-filing printed publication |
Searches combine classification-driven retrieval, free-text and semantic expansion, assignee/inventor harvesting, forward-and-backward citation snowballing and a non-patent literature sweep. Each reference is independently ranked by two reviewers.
| Stage | What we did | Sources | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope freeze | Confirm claims/features, dates, jurisdictions and decision to support | Client disclosure, inventors | Signed scope memo |
| Classification search | CPC/IPC/FI/F-term spine plus cross-class checks | USPTO, EPO, WIPO, CNIPA, JPO | Classification log |
| Keyword + semantic | Boolean strings + transformer-based vector search over 100M+ abstracts | PatBase, Orbit, Lens, Google Patents | Search strings log |
| Snowballing | Two citation generations forward/backward; assignee and inventor harvesting | Lens, PatBase | Candidate list |
| NPL & product sweep | Peer-reviewed, arXiv, standards, product manuals, teardowns, FDA/SEC | IEEE, ACM, arXiv, standards, web | NPL appendix |
| Ranking & QA | Two-reviewer X/Y/A coding; family & legal-status cross-check | Internal | Color-coded chart |
Findings are color-coded by relevance. References are coded X (anticipates), Y (combines for obviousness) or A (background). Risk ratings reflect the impact on a typical independent claim.
RED findings must be addressed by claim amendment, design-around or opinion before reliance. AMBER findings require a documented position. GREEN findings are listed for completeness and IDS duty.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Output | Format | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Executive report | Searchable PDF | Opinion, tables and charts for the decision-maker |
| Working copy | DOCX | Editable by counsel for amendments and opinions |
| Source workbook | XLSX | Every reference, classification, family and status row |
| Appendix | PDF/A | Pinpoint copies of material references and NPL |
| Claim/claim-chart file | DOCX + XLSX | Color-coded element mapping with comments |
Matter: Aether Therapeutics — G12D analog FTO + coverage
Prepared for: Aether Therapeutics (fictional)
A Markush coverage assessment for a genus of pyrimidine-based KRAS G12D inhibitors. Substructure, sequence and Markush searches were run in Reaxys, SciFinder-n, MARPAT and SureChEMBL. The report maps Aether's 12 lead analogs against two competitor genus patents.
| Region | Competitor A | Competitor B | Our assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| R1 = 3-Cl-4-F phenyl | Species disclosed (Ex. 4) | Within genus | Avoid; pick 2,3-dimethylphenyl |
| R2 = azetidine amide | Within genus | Not covered | License or design-around |
| R2 = 3-fluoropiperidine | Not disclosed | Not disclosed | WHITE SPACE — recommended lead |
Searches combine classification-driven retrieval, free-text and semantic expansion, assignee/inventor harvesting, forward-and-backward citation snowballing and a non-patent literature sweep. Each reference is independently ranked by two reviewers.
| Stage | What we did | Sources | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope freeze | Confirm claims/features, dates, jurisdictions and decision to support | Client disclosure, inventors | Signed scope memo |
| Classification search | CPC/IPC/FI/F-term spine plus cross-class checks | USPTO, EPO, WIPO, CNIPA, JPO | Classification log |
| Keyword + semantic | Boolean strings + transformer-based vector search over 100M+ abstracts | PatBase, Orbit, Lens, Google Patents | Search strings log |
| Snowballing | Two citation generations forward/backward; assignee and inventor harvesting | Lens, PatBase | Candidate list |
| NPL & product sweep | Peer-reviewed, arXiv, standards, product manuals, teardowns, FDA/SEC | IEEE, ACM, arXiv, standards, web | NPL appendix |
| Ranking & QA | Two-reviewer X/Y/A coding; family & legal-status cross-check | Internal | Color-coded chart |
Findings are color-coded by relevance. References are coded X (anticipates), Y (combines for obviousness) or A (background). Risk ratings reflect the impact on a typical independent claim.
RED findings must be addressed by claim amendment, design-around or opinion before reliance. AMBER findings require a documented position. GREEN findings are listed for completeness and IDS duty.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Output | Format | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Executive report | Searchable PDF | Opinion, tables and charts for the decision-maker |
| Working copy | DOCX | Editable by counsel for amendments and opinions |
| Source workbook | XLSX | Every reference, classification, family and status row |
| Appendix | PDF/A | Pinpoint copies of material references and NPL |
| Claim/claim-chart file | DOCX + XLSX | Color-coded element mapping with comments |
Matter: defense to fictional US 11,xxx,xxx claiming a GLP-1 analog for chronic-weight management
Prepared for: generic-drug manufacturer (fictional) · ANDA defense
Counsel defending an ANDA for a semaglutide-class GLP-1 agonist against a fictional formulation/use patent asked us to find pre-2015 anticipatory and obviousness references. The asserted claim is to a once-weekly GLP-1 analog with a specific fatty-acid side chain for use in chronic weight management. We identified three anticipation references and two obviousness combinations. The real molecule semaglutide is discussed only as prior-art context; the asserted patent number and its examples are fictional.
Claims 1 and 12 are anticipated by Ref A. Claims 3 and 7 are obvious over Ref A + Ref B. There is a high likelihood of invalidity for all contested claims. Real-world context: semaglutide's own earlier composition and weight-loss phase-2 publications pre-date the fictional patent.
All primary references pre-date the asserted 2015 priority date. The semaglutide composition and dosing were in the public domain well before, and Ref A and B together would have given a POSA a reasonable expectation of weight-loss success.
1. A method of chronic weight management in a human with BMI ≥ 27, comprising administering once weekly a GLP-1 analog comprising the peptide of SEQ ID NO: 3 and a fatty-acid side chain of formula -A-B-C, wherein B is an 8-amino-3,6-dioxaoctanoic acid spacer.
| Limitation | Ref A disclosure | Assessment | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weekly GLP-1 analog for T2D | [0091] once-weekly dosing in T2D patients | {'verdict': 'high'} | |
| Peptide of SEQ ID NO: 3 | [0118] Example 2 — same 31-mer peptide | {'verdict': 'high'} | |
| Side chain -A-B-C with B = ADO spacer | [0044]–[0048]; formula identical | {'verdict': 'high'} | |
| For chronic weight management in BMI ≥ 27 | Ref A T2D; weight loss reported as secondary endpoint | {'verdict': 'low'} |
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the patient has at least one weight-related co-morbidity.
| Limitation | Ref A | Ref B | Assessment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All features of claim 1 | Ref A | — | {'verdict': 'high'} | |
| Obesity with co-morbidity | — | Ref B §III cohort with dyslipidemia / pre-diabetes | {'verdict': 'high'} |
Ref A and Ref B share two inventors and were presented at the same 2013 ADA symposium. Ref A itself notes 'mean weight loss of 4.2 kg over 52 weeks' as a secondary endpoint, providing an explicit motivation to pursue the obesity indication. By 2014, FDA guidance already accepted BMI ≥ 27 plus co-morbidity as a weight-management population. A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the pharmacokinetics (t½ ~165 h) were identical in T2D and obese cohorts.
All patent numbers and examples are fictional and illustrative. The report demonstrates how an invalidity search would use the real, publicly known GLP-1 / semaglutide prior art without asserting facts about any real, currently-litigated patent.
Searches combine classification-driven retrieval, free-text and semantic expansion, assignee/inventor harvesting, forward-and-backward citation snowballing and a non-patent literature sweep. Each reference is independently ranked by two reviewers.
| Stage | What we did | Sources | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope freeze | Confirm claims/features, dates, jurisdictions and decision to support | Client disclosure, inventors | Signed scope memo |
| Classification search | CPC/IPC/FI/F-term spine plus cross-class checks | USPTO, EPO, WIPO, CNIPA, JPO | Classification log |
| Keyword + semantic | Boolean strings + transformer-based vector search over 100M+ abstracts | PatBase, Orbit, Lens, Google Patents | Search strings log |
| Snowballing | Two citation generations forward/backward; assignee and inventor harvesting | Lens, PatBase | Candidate list |
| NPL & product sweep | Peer-reviewed, arXiv, standards, product manuals, teardowns, FDA/SEC | IEEE, ACM, arXiv, standards, web | NPL appendix |
| Ranking & QA | Two-reviewer X/Y/A coding; family & legal-status cross-check | Internal | Color-coded chart |
Findings are color-coded by relevance. References are coded X (anticipates), Y (combines for obviousness) or A (background). Risk ratings reflect the impact on a typical independent claim.
RED findings must be addressed by claim amendment, design-around or opinion before reliance. AMBER findings require a documented position. GREEN findings are listed for completeness and IDS duty.
| Output | Format | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Executive report | Searchable PDF | Opinion, tables and charts for the decision-maker |
| Working copy | DOCX | Editable by counsel for amendments and opinions |
| Source workbook | XLSX | Every reference, classification, family and status row |
| Appendix | PDF/A | Pinpoint copies of material references and NPL |
| Claim/claim-chart file | DOCX + XLSX | Color-coded element mapping with comments |
Matter: client mesh router family vs. competitor patent US 10,xxx,xxx
Prepared for: networking company (fictional) · Pre-litigation clearance
Counsel for a Wi-Fi 6E mesh-router vendor asked for a non-infringement opinion regarding a competitor's patent on a 'dedicated backhaul channel using a hidden SSID.' The client's product uses an open, multi-link operation (MLO) backhaul instead of a hidden SSID. We charted claims 1, 7 and 12 against the product and concluded no literal infringement and no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents after prosecution-history estoppel.
1. A mesh network, comprising: a root node; a plurality of satellite nodes; a backhaul radio on each node; and a controller that associates the backhaul radios using a hidden service set identifier (SSID) not broadcast in beacons …
| Limitation | Client product | Assessment | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Root + satellite mesh | Controller + 2 satellites | {'verdict': 'high'} | |
| Dedicated backhaul radio | 6 GHz radio used for backhaul | {'verdict': 'high'} | |
| Hidden SSID (not in beacons) | Backhaul uses open MLO; SSID is broadcast | {'verdict': 'low'} | |
| Controller associates nodes using hidden SSID | Association via MLO setup, no hidden SSID | {'verdict': 'low'} |
Because the hidden-SSID limitation is required and absent, there is no literal infringement.
During prosecution the patentee amended claim 1 to add the 'hidden SSID' limitation to overcome prior art that used an open, broadcast SSID. That amendment creates prosecution-history estoppel, barring the patentee from arguing that an openly broadcasting backhaul is equivalent to a hidden one. We therefore conclude no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents either.
| Theory | Asserted equivalent | Estoppel bar | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Function-way-result | Open MLO = hidden SSID | Yes — narrowing amendment | Barred |
| Tangentiality | — | Not tangential (directly added to distinguish) | Barred |
Searches combine classification-driven retrieval, free-text and semantic expansion, assignee/inventor harvesting, forward-and-backward citation snowballing and a non-patent literature sweep. Each reference is independently ranked by two reviewers.
| Stage | What we did | Sources | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope freeze | Confirm claims/features, dates, jurisdictions and decision to support | Client disclosure, inventors | Signed scope memo |
| Classification search | CPC/IPC/FI/F-term spine plus cross-class checks | USPTO, EPO, WIPO, CNIPA, JPO | Classification log |
| Keyword + semantic | Boolean strings + transformer-based vector search over 100M+ abstracts | PatBase, Orbit, Lens, Google Patents | Search strings log |
| Snowballing | Two citation generations forward/backward; assignee and inventor harvesting | Lens, PatBase | Candidate list |
| NPL & product sweep | Peer-reviewed, arXiv, standards, product manuals, teardowns, FDA/SEC | IEEE, ACM, arXiv, standards, web | NPL appendix |
| Ranking & QA | Two-reviewer X/Y/A coding; family & legal-status cross-check | Internal | Color-coded chart |
Findings are color-coded by relevance. References are coded X (anticipates), Y (combines for obviousness) or A (background). Risk ratings reflect the impact on a typical independent claim.
RED findings must be addressed by claim amendment, design-around or opinion before reliance. AMBER findings require a documented position. GREEN findings are listed for completeness and IDS duty.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Output | Format | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Executive report | Searchable PDF | Opinion, tables and charts for the decision-maker |
| Working copy | DOCX | Editable by counsel for amendments and opinions |
| Source workbook | XLSX | Every reference, classification, family and status row |
| Appendix | PDF/A | Pinpoint copies of material references and NPL |
| Claim/claim-chart file | DOCX + XLSX | Color-coded element mapping with comments |
Matter: client mesh router family vs. competitor patent US 10,xxx,xxx
Prepared for: networking company (fictional) · Pre-litigation clearance
Counsel for a Wi-Fi 6E mesh-router vendor asked for a non-infringement opinion regarding a competitor's patent on a 'dedicated backhaul channel using a hidden SSID.' The client's product uses an open, multi-link operation (MLO) backhaul instead of a hidden SSID. We charted claims 1, 7 and 12 against the product and concluded no literal infringement and no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents after prosecution-history estoppel.
This report adds a section on claim-construction risk for the term 'hidden SSID' and charts two pending continuation applications that could threaten the next product revision.
1. A mesh network, comprising: a root node; a plurality of satellite nodes; a backhaul radio on each node; and a controller that associates the backhaul radios using a hidden service set identifier (SSID) not broadcast in beacons …
| Limitation | Client product | Assessment | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Root + satellite mesh | Controller + 2 satellites | {'verdict': 'high'} | |
| Dedicated backhaul radio | 6 GHz radio used for backhaul | {'verdict': 'high'} | |
| Hidden SSID (not in beacons) | Backhaul uses open MLO; SSID is broadcast | {'verdict': 'low'} | |
| Controller associates nodes using hidden SSID | Association via MLO setup, no hidden SSID | {'verdict': 'low'} |
Because the hidden-SSID limitation is required and absent, there is no literal infringement.
During prosecution the patentee amended claim 1 to add the 'hidden SSID' limitation to overcome prior art that used an open, broadcast SSID. That amendment creates prosecution-history estoppel, barring the patentee from arguing that an openly broadcasting backhaul is equivalent to a hidden one. We therefore conclude no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents either.
| Theory | Asserted equivalent | Estoppel bar | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Function-way-result | Open MLO = hidden SSID | Yes — narrowing amendment | Barred |
| Tangentiality | — | Not tangential (directly added to distinguish) | Barred |
Searches combine classification-driven retrieval, free-text and semantic expansion, assignee/inventor harvesting, forward-and-backward citation snowballing and a non-patent literature sweep. Each reference is independently ranked by two reviewers.
| Stage | What we did | Sources | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope freeze | Confirm claims/features, dates, jurisdictions and decision to support | Client disclosure, inventors | Signed scope memo |
| Classification search | CPC/IPC/FI/F-term spine plus cross-class checks | USPTO, EPO, WIPO, CNIPA, JPO | Classification log |
| Keyword + semantic | Boolean strings + transformer-based vector search over 100M+ abstracts | PatBase, Orbit, Lens, Google Patents | Search strings log |
| Snowballing | Two citation generations forward/backward; assignee and inventor harvesting | Lens, PatBase | Candidate list |
| NPL & product sweep | Peer-reviewed, arXiv, standards, product manuals, teardowns, FDA/SEC | IEEE, ACM, arXiv, standards, web | NPL appendix |
| Ranking & QA | Two-reviewer X/Y/A coding; family & legal-status cross-check | Internal | Color-coded chart |
Findings are color-coded by relevance. References are coded X (anticipates), Y (combines for obviousness) or A (background). Risk ratings reflect the impact on a typical independent claim.
RED findings must be addressed by claim amendment, design-around or opinion before reliance. AMBER findings require a documented position. GREEN findings are listed for completeness and IDS duty.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Output | Format | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Executive report | Searchable PDF | Opinion, tables and charts for the decision-maker |
| Working copy | DOCX | Editable by counsel for amendments and opinions |
| Source workbook | XLSX | Every reference, classification, family and status row |
| Appendix | PDF/A | Pinpoint copies of material references and NPL |
| Claim/claim-chart file | DOCX + XLSX | Color-coded element mapping with comments |
Matter: assertion candidate vs. AccuCharge Pro case
Prepared for: licensing program (fictional)
A court-ready EoU chart mapping claim 1 of US 8,xxx,xxx (adaptive wireless-charging case with foreign-object detection) against the AccuCharge Pro earbud case. Evidence comes from a teardown, FCC filing, user manual, marketing pages and oscilloscope captures of the charging waveform.
1. A wireless charging apparatus, comprising: a transmitter coil; a driver; a Q-factor measurement circuit; a controller that, prior to power transfer, applies a burst pulse, measures a resonant-ring Q-factor, and inhibits power transfer when Q is below a threshold stored in non-volatile memory.
| Asserted limitation | Evidence of use | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transmitter coil | Ex-07 teardown photo: A11 TX coil L1 | {'verdict': 'high'} | |
| Driver coupled to coil | Ex-03 FCC schematic shows BQ H-bridge U2 → L1 | {'verdict': 'high'} | |
| Q-factor measurement circuit | Ex-09 sense R14 + ADC A5; TP3 labeled 'Q' | {'verdict': 'high'} | |
| Controller applying burst pulse | Ex-15 scope: 30 µs 5 V burst at t=0 | {'verdict': 'high'} | |
| Measuring resonant-ring Q | Ex-16 ring-down; Q = 28 no object | {'verdict': 'high'} | |
| Inhibits transfer when Q below threshold | Ex-18 video: steel disc → red LED, no power | {'verdict': 'high'} | |
| Threshold in NVM | Ex-20 firmware strings: FOD_Q_THRESH = 22 | {'verdict': 'high'} |
All seven core limitations met literally; four additional dependent limitations met in the full chart.
All limitations are met literally, so DOE is pled only as an alternative for the Q-factor circuit in case of future firmware changes. Prosecution history shows no narrowing amendment on the Q-factor limitation, so DOE is available there.
Searches combine classification-driven retrieval, free-text and semantic expansion, assignee/inventor harvesting, forward-and-backward citation snowballing and a non-patent literature sweep. Each reference is independently ranked by two reviewers.
| Stage | What we did | Sources | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope freeze | Confirm claims/features, dates, jurisdictions and decision to support | Client disclosure, inventors | Signed scope memo |
| Classification search | CPC/IPC/FI/F-term spine plus cross-class checks | USPTO, EPO, WIPO, CNIPA, JPO | Classification log |
| Keyword + semantic | Boolean strings + transformer-based vector search over 100M+ abstracts | PatBase, Orbit, Lens, Google Patents | Search strings log |
| Snowballing | Two citation generations forward/backward; assignee and inventor harvesting | Lens, PatBase | Candidate list |
| NPL & product sweep | Peer-reviewed, arXiv, standards, product manuals, teardowns, FDA/SEC | IEEE, ACM, arXiv, standards, web | NPL appendix |
| Ranking & QA | Two-reviewer X/Y/A coding; family & legal-status cross-check | Internal | Color-coded chart |
Findings are color-coded by relevance. References are coded X (anticipates), Y (combines for obviousness) or A (background). Risk ratings reflect the impact on a typical independent claim.
RED findings must be addressed by claim amendment, design-around or opinion before reliance. AMBER findings require a documented position. GREEN findings are listed for completeness and IDS duty.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Output | Format | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Executive report | Searchable PDF | Opinion, tables and charts for the decision-maker |
| Working copy | DOCX | Editable by counsel for amendments and opinions |
| Source workbook | XLSX | Every reference, classification, family and status row |
| Appendix | PDF/A | Pinpoint copies of material references and NPL |
| Claim/claim-chart file | DOCX + XLSX | Color-coded element mapping with comments |
Matter: SEP licensing program — FRAND portfolio vs. flagship 5G handset
Prepared for: SEP licensor (fictional)
An EoU combining product claim charts (teardown + signalling captures) and standard-contribution charts mapping the asserted claims to specific sections of 3GPP TS 38.321 / 38.331. The report is the evidentiary base for a FRAND licensing discussion.
| Claim element | Phone evidence | Standard evidence | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Configured grant using DCI format 0_1 | Baseband log Ex-14 | TS 38.212 §7.3.1.1 | High |
| SR / BSR multiplexing logic | Signalling trace Ex-22 | TS 38.321 §5.4.4 | High |
| HARQ-ACK codebook generation | Chipset datasheet Ex-31 | TS 38.213 §9.1 | High |
| Beam failure recovery | Field test Ex-40 | TS 38.213 §6 | Med |
Each asserted claim element is mapped to a specific clause of a 3GPP specification with contribution history showing the patentee's role in adopting the feature. FRAND encumbrance is tracked per-patent in the appendix.
Searches combine classification-driven retrieval, free-text and semantic expansion, assignee/inventor harvesting, forward-and-backward citation snowballing and a non-patent literature sweep. Each reference is independently ranked by two reviewers.
| Stage | What we did | Sources | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope freeze | Confirm claims/features, dates, jurisdictions and decision to support | Client disclosure, inventors | Signed scope memo |
| Classification search | CPC/IPC/FI/F-term spine plus cross-class checks | USPTO, EPO, WIPO, CNIPA, JPO | Classification log |
| Keyword + semantic | Boolean strings + transformer-based vector search over 100M+ abstracts | PatBase, Orbit, Lens, Google Patents | Search strings log |
| Snowballing | Two citation generations forward/backward; assignee and inventor harvesting | Lens, PatBase | Candidate list |
| NPL & product sweep | Peer-reviewed, arXiv, standards, product manuals, teardowns, FDA/SEC | IEEE, ACM, arXiv, standards, web | NPL appendix |
| Ranking & QA | Two-reviewer X/Y/A coding; family & legal-status cross-check | Internal | Color-coded chart |
Findings are color-coded by relevance. References are coded X (anticipates), Y (combines for obviousness) or A (background). Risk ratings reflect the impact on a typical independent claim.
RED findings must be addressed by claim amendment, design-around or opinion before reliance. AMBER findings require a documented position. GREEN findings are listed for completeness and IDS duty.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Output | Format | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Executive report | Searchable PDF | Opinion, tables and charts for the decision-maker |
| Working copy | DOCX | Editable by counsel for amendments and opinions |
| Source workbook | XLSX | Every reference, classification, family and status row |
| Appendix | PDF/A | Pinpoint copies of material references and NPL |
| Claim/claim-chart file | DOCX + XLSX | Color-coded element mapping with comments |
Matter: opposition to EP 3 xxx xxx B1 (fictional)
Prepared for: competitor in agriculture IoT (fictional)
Opposition against a European patent claiming a soil-moisture sensor with a capacitive probe and a low-power wake-on-radio. Grounds: Art. 100(a) EPC (lack of novelty and inventive step) and, in the alternative, Art. 100(b) (insufficient disclosure).
Searches combine classification-driven retrieval, free-text and semantic expansion, assignee/inventor harvesting, forward-and-backward citation snowballing and a non-patent literature sweep. Each reference is independently ranked by two reviewers.
| Stage | What we did | Sources | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope freeze | Confirm claims/features, dates, jurisdictions and decision to support | Client disclosure, inventors | Signed scope memo |
| Classification search | CPC/IPC/FI/F-term spine plus cross-class checks | USPTO, EPO, WIPO, CNIPA, JPO | Classification log |
| Keyword + semantic | Boolean strings + transformer-based vector search over 100M+ abstracts | PatBase, Orbit, Lens, Google Patents | Search strings log |
| Snowballing | Two citation generations forward/backward; assignee and inventor harvesting | Lens, PatBase | Candidate list |
| NPL & product sweep | Peer-reviewed, arXiv, standards, product manuals, teardowns, FDA/SEC | IEEE, ACM, arXiv, standards, web | NPL appendix |
| Ranking & QA | Two-reviewer X/Y/A coding; family & legal-status cross-check | Internal | Color-coded chart |
Findings are color-coded by relevance. References are coded X (anticipates), Y (combines for obviousness) or A (background). Risk ratings reflect the impact on a typical independent claim.
RED findings must be addressed by claim amendment, design-around or opinion before reliance. AMBER findings require a documented position. GREEN findings are listed for completeness and IDS duty.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Output | Format | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Executive report | Searchable PDF | Opinion, tables and charts for the decision-maker |
| Working copy | DOCX | Editable by counsel for amendments and opinions |
| Source workbook | XLSX | Every reference, classification, family and status row |
| Appendix | PDF/A | Pinpoint copies of material references and NPL |
| Claim/claim-chart file | DOCX + XLSX | Color-coded element mapping with comments |
Matter: US 17/xxx,xxx — non-final Office Action
Prepared for: outside counsel (fictional)
A non-final Office Action rejected claims 1–17 under §103 over D1 (a 2018 paper on per-title encoding) and D2 (a 2020 patent on QP selection). The response amends independent claim 1 to require a 'content-aware ladder with segment-level quality targets' and argues that neither reference teaches segment-level feedback.
OA combines D1 (per-title ladder) with D2 (QP per scene) for a §103 rejection.
| Feature | D1 | D2 | Distinction | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per-title ladder | Yes | — | {'verdict': 'high'} | |
| Segment-level quality target | No | No | {'verdict': 'none'} | |
| Feedback to next-segment QP | — | Per-scene only | {'verdict': 'low'} |
Searches combine classification-driven retrieval, free-text and semantic expansion, assignee/inventor harvesting, forward-and-backward citation snowballing and a non-patent literature sweep. Each reference is independently ranked by two reviewers.
| Stage | What we did | Sources | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope freeze | Confirm claims/features, dates, jurisdictions and decision to support | Client disclosure, inventors | Signed scope memo |
| Classification search | CPC/IPC/FI/F-term spine plus cross-class checks | USPTO, EPO, WIPO, CNIPA, JPO | Classification log |
| Keyword + semantic | Boolean strings + transformer-based vector search over 100M+ abstracts | PatBase, Orbit, Lens, Google Patents | Search strings log |
| Snowballing | Two citation generations forward/backward; assignee and inventor harvesting | Lens, PatBase | Candidate list |
| NPL & product sweep | Peer-reviewed, arXiv, standards, product manuals, teardowns, FDA/SEC | IEEE, ACM, arXiv, standards, web | NPL appendix |
| Ranking & QA | Two-reviewer X/Y/A coding; family & legal-status cross-check | Internal | Color-coded chart |
Findings are color-coded by relevance. References are coded X (anticipates), Y (combines for obviousness) or A (background). Risk ratings reflect the impact on a typical independent claim.
RED findings must be addressed by claim amendment, design-around or opinion before reliance. AMBER findings require a documented position. GREEN findings are listed for completeness and IDS duty.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Output | Format | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Executive report | Searchable PDF | Opinion, tables and charts for the decision-maker |
| Working copy | DOCX | Editable by counsel for amendments and opinions |
| Source workbook | XLSX | Every reference, classification, family and status row |
| Appendix | PDF/A | Pinpoint copies of material references and NPL |
| Claim/claim-chart file | DOCX + XLSX | Color-coded element mapping with comments |
Matter: investment & patent strategy in chiplet interconnects
Prepared for: corporate venturing team (fictional)
A technical analysis of die-to-die and chiplet interconnects (UCIe, BoW, NVLink, Infinity Fabric) covering physical-layer options, protocol stacks, power envelopes and patent concentration. The brief supports an investment decision in a UCIe-IP start-up.
| Layer | Options | Who leads | Open issue |
|---|---|---|---|
| Physical | SerDes, parallel, organic substrate, silicon bridge | Foundries, IP cos. | Reach vs. power |
| Link | UCIe, BoW, HBM-style | Intel/UCIe consortium | Multi-die coherence |
| Protocol | PCIe/CXL, AXI, custom | Arm, AMD, NV | Cache-coherent fabrics |
| Software | Topology discovery, RAS | OSVs | Heterogeneous scheduling |
Searches combine classification-driven retrieval, free-text and semantic expansion, assignee/inventor harvesting, forward-and-backward citation snowballing and a non-patent literature sweep. Each reference is independently ranked by two reviewers.
| Stage | What we did | Sources | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope freeze | Confirm claims/features, dates, jurisdictions and decision to support | Client disclosure, inventors | Signed scope memo |
| Classification search | CPC/IPC/FI/F-term spine plus cross-class checks | USPTO, EPO, WIPO, CNIPA, JPO | Classification log |
| Keyword + semantic | Boolean strings + transformer-based vector search over 100M+ abstracts | PatBase, Orbit, Lens, Google Patents | Search strings log |
| Snowballing | Two citation generations forward/backward; assignee and inventor harvesting | Lens, PatBase | Candidate list |
| NPL & product sweep | Peer-reviewed, arXiv, standards, product manuals, teardowns, FDA/SEC | IEEE, ACM, arXiv, standards, web | NPL appendix |
| Ranking & QA | Two-reviewer X/Y/A coding; family & legal-status cross-check | Internal | Color-coded chart |
Findings are color-coded by relevance. References are coded X (anticipates), Y (combines for obviousness) or A (background). Risk ratings reflect the impact on a typical independent claim.
RED findings must be addressed by claim amendment, design-around or opinion before reliance. AMBER findings require a documented position. GREEN findings are listed for completeness and IDS duty.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Output | Format | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Executive report | Searchable PDF | Opinion, tables and charts for the decision-maker |
| Working copy | DOCX | Editable by counsel for amendments and opinions |
| Source workbook | XLSX | Every reference, classification, family and status row |
| Appendix | PDF/A | Pinpoint copies of material references and NPL |
| Claim/claim-chart file | DOCX + XLSX | Color-coded element mapping with comments |
Matter: R&D portfolio planning
Prepared for: media-tech client (fictional)
A global landscape of 4,800 families on neural and generative video codecs (2018–2025). The report maps filing trends, cluster density, assignee concentration and five white-space clusters.
Bubble position = earliest filing year (x) against intensity (y); size = family count.
Searches combine classification-driven retrieval, free-text and semantic expansion, assignee/inventor harvesting, forward-and-backward citation snowballing and a non-patent literature sweep. Each reference is independently ranked by two reviewers.
| Stage | What we did | Sources | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope freeze | Confirm claims/features, dates, jurisdictions and decision to support | Client disclosure, inventors | Signed scope memo |
| Classification search | CPC/IPC/FI/F-term spine plus cross-class checks | USPTO, EPO, WIPO, CNIPA, JPO | Classification log |
| Keyword + semantic | Boolean strings + transformer-based vector search over 100M+ abstracts | PatBase, Orbit, Lens, Google Patents | Search strings log |
| Snowballing | Two citation generations forward/backward; assignee and inventor harvesting | Lens, PatBase | Candidate list |
| NPL & product sweep | Peer-reviewed, arXiv, standards, product manuals, teardowns, FDA/SEC | IEEE, ACM, arXiv, standards, web | NPL appendix |
| Ranking & QA | Two-reviewer X/Y/A coding; family & legal-status cross-check | Internal | Color-coded chart |
Findings are color-coded by relevance. References are coded X (anticipates), Y (combines for obviousness) or A (background). Risk ratings reflect the impact on a typical independent claim.
RED findings must be addressed by claim amendment, design-around or opinion before reliance. AMBER findings require a documented position. GREEN findings are listed for completeness and IDS duty.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Output | Format | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Executive report | Searchable PDF | Opinion, tables and charts for the decision-maker |
| Working copy | DOCX | Editable by counsel for amendments and opinions |
| Source workbook | XLSX | Every reference, classification, family and status row |
| Appendix | PDF/A | Pinpoint copies of material references and NPL |
| Claim/claim-chart file | DOCX + XLSX | Color-coded element mapping with comments |
Matter: portfolio pruning & divestiture
Prepared for: MedDevices Inc. GC (fictional)
A 480-family portfolio audit scoring each asset on technical strength, coverage of revenue, encumbrance and maintenance cost. The report groups assets into Core, Defensive, Licensing and Abandon candidates.
Searches combine classification-driven retrieval, free-text and semantic expansion, assignee/inventor harvesting, forward-and-backward citation snowballing and a non-patent literature sweep. Each reference is independently ranked by two reviewers.
| Stage | What we did | Sources | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope freeze | Confirm claims/features, dates, jurisdictions and decision to support | Client disclosure, inventors | Signed scope memo |
| Classification search | CPC/IPC/FI/F-term spine plus cross-class checks | USPTO, EPO, WIPO, CNIPA, JPO | Classification log |
| Keyword + semantic | Boolean strings + transformer-based vector search over 100M+ abstracts | PatBase, Orbit, Lens, Google Patents | Search strings log |
| Snowballing | Two citation generations forward/backward; assignee and inventor harvesting | Lens, PatBase | Candidate list |
| NPL & product sweep | Peer-reviewed, arXiv, standards, product manuals, teardowns, FDA/SEC | IEEE, ACM, arXiv, standards, web | NPL appendix |
| Ranking & QA | Two-reviewer X/Y/A coding; family & legal-status cross-check | Internal | Color-coded chart |
Findings are color-coded by relevance. References are coded X (anticipates), Y (combines for obviousness) or A (background). Risk ratings reflect the impact on a typical independent claim.
RED findings must be addressed by claim amendment, design-around or opinion before reliance. AMBER findings require a documented position. GREEN findings are listed for completeness and IDS duty.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Output | Format | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Executive report | Searchable PDF | Opinion, tables and charts for the decision-maker |
| Working copy | DOCX | Editable by counsel for amendments and opinions |
| Source workbook | XLSX | Every reference, classification, family and status row |
| Appendix | PDF/A | Pinpoint copies of material references and NPL |
| Claim/claim-chart file | DOCX + XLSX | Color-coded element mapping with comments |
Matter: R&D investment direction for SMR program
Prepared for: energy major (fictional)
A white-space analysis of 5,200 SMR-related patent families (2010–2025) identifying under-patented areas the client can own. We focus on passively-cooled micro-reactors, advanced manufacturing and digital twins for licensing.
| Why open | Adjacent art | Recommended action | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Additive-manufactured stainless vessel with integrated shielding | Only 22 families; OEMs keep trade secret | Welding patents | File 3 applications |
| Digital-twin probabilistic safety case | Mostly academic; few patents | General ML twins | File method + system claims |
| Autonomous refueling robot for micro-reactors | 11 families; bespoke | Nuclear robotics | File joint design + control IP |
Searches combine classification-driven retrieval, free-text and semantic expansion, assignee/inventor harvesting, forward-and-backward citation snowballing and a non-patent literature sweep. Each reference is independently ranked by two reviewers.
| Stage | What we did | Sources | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope freeze | Confirm claims/features, dates, jurisdictions and decision to support | Client disclosure, inventors | Signed scope memo |
| Classification search | CPC/IPC/FI/F-term spine plus cross-class checks | USPTO, EPO, WIPO, CNIPA, JPO | Classification log |
| Keyword + semantic | Boolean strings + transformer-based vector search over 100M+ abstracts | PatBase, Orbit, Lens, Google Patents | Search strings log |
| Snowballing | Two citation generations forward/backward; assignee and inventor harvesting | Lens, PatBase | Candidate list |
| NPL & product sweep | Peer-reviewed, arXiv, standards, product manuals, teardowns, FDA/SEC | IEEE, ACM, arXiv, standards, web | NPL appendix |
| Ranking & QA | Two-reviewer X/Y/A coding; family & legal-status cross-check | Internal | Color-coded chart |
Findings are color-coded by relevance. References are coded X (anticipates), Y (combines for obviousness) or A (background). Risk ratings reflect the impact on a typical independent claim.
RED findings must be addressed by claim amendment, design-around or opinion before reliance. AMBER findings require a documented position. GREEN findings are listed for completeness and IDS duty.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Output | Format | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Executive report | Searchable PDF | Opinion, tables and charts for the decision-maker |
| Working copy | DOCX | Editable by counsel for amendments and opinions |
| Source workbook | XLSX | Every reference, classification, family and status row |
| Appendix | PDF/A | Pinpoint copies of material references and NPL |
| Claim/claim-chart file | DOCX + XLSX | Color-coded element mapping with comments |
Matter: quarterly patent & product watch
Prepared for: automotive Tier-1 (fictional)
A quarterly competitive-intelligence brief covering the ADAS portfolios of five named competitors (fictionalized). The report flags new filings, key hires, product teardowns, standards participation and litigation.
| Player | Focus this quarter | Watched patents | Our response |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competitor A | Occupant-monitoring IR | 3 newly granted | File around IR + DMS fusion |
| Competitor B | L3 hands-off in urban | 5 continuation filings | Accelerate our L3 prior art |
| Competitor C | 4D imaging radar | 1 SEP candidate | Design-around + standard watch |
| Competitor D | End-to-end NN planner | 2 publications | Prior-art slam if they file |
| Competitor E | Cost-down stereo | 1 design around | Track cost benchmark |
Searches combine classification-driven retrieval, free-text and semantic expansion, assignee/inventor harvesting, forward-and-backward citation snowballing and a non-patent literature sweep. Each reference is independently ranked by two reviewers.
| Stage | What we did | Sources | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope freeze | Confirm claims/features, dates, jurisdictions and decision to support | Client disclosure, inventors | Signed scope memo |
| Classification search | CPC/IPC/FI/F-term spine plus cross-class checks | USPTO, EPO, WIPO, CNIPA, JPO | Classification log |
| Keyword + semantic | Boolean strings + transformer-based vector search over 100M+ abstracts | PatBase, Orbit, Lens, Google Patents | Search strings log |
| Snowballing | Two citation generations forward/backward; assignee and inventor harvesting | Lens, PatBase | Candidate list |
| NPL & product sweep | Peer-reviewed, arXiv, standards, product manuals, teardowns, FDA/SEC | IEEE, ACM, arXiv, standards, web | NPL appendix |
| Ranking & QA | Two-reviewer X/Y/A coding; family & legal-status cross-check | Internal | Color-coded chart |
Findings are color-coded by relevance. References are coded X (anticipates), Y (combines for obviousness) or A (background). Risk ratings reflect the impact on a typical independent claim.
RED findings must be addressed by claim amendment, design-around or opinion before reliance. AMBER findings require a documented position. GREEN findings are listed for completeness and IDS duty.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Output | Format | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Executive report | Searchable PDF | Opinion, tables and charts for the decision-maker |
| Working copy | DOCX | Editable by counsel for amendments and opinions |
| Source workbook | XLSX | Every reference, classification, family and status row |
| Appendix | PDF/A | Pinpoint copies of material references and NPL |
| Claim/claim-chart file | DOCX + XLSX | Color-coded element mapping with comments |
Matter: identify licensing or acquisition targets
Prepared for: sustainability fund (fictional)
A scouting report on 12 carbon-removal start-ups with defensible IP. We scored each on technical differentiation, portfolio strength, team, and deal readiness.
| Target | Tech | Key patents | Deal type | Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Start-up α | Electro-swing DAC | 2 granted, 4 pending | License | Medium |
| Start-up β | Ocean alkalinity | 1 granted process | Acquire | Low |
| Start-up γ | Biochar reactor | Design + utility | License | Low |
| Start-up δ | Direct ocean capture | 3 pending | Watch | High |
Searches combine classification-driven retrieval, free-text and semantic expansion, assignee/inventor harvesting, forward-and-backward citation snowballing and a non-patent literature sweep. Each reference is independently ranked by two reviewers.
| Stage | What we did | Sources | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope freeze | Confirm claims/features, dates, jurisdictions and decision to support | Client disclosure, inventors | Signed scope memo |
| Classification search | CPC/IPC/FI/F-term spine plus cross-class checks | USPTO, EPO, WIPO, CNIPA, JPO | Classification log |
| Keyword + semantic | Boolean strings + transformer-based vector search over 100M+ abstracts | PatBase, Orbit, Lens, Google Patents | Search strings log |
| Snowballing | Two citation generations forward/backward; assignee and inventor harvesting | Lens, PatBase | Candidate list |
| NPL & product sweep | Peer-reviewed, arXiv, standards, product manuals, teardowns, FDA/SEC | IEEE, ACM, arXiv, standards, web | NPL appendix |
| Ranking & QA | Two-reviewer X/Y/A coding; family & legal-status cross-check | Internal | Color-coded chart |
Findings are color-coded by relevance. References are coded X (anticipates), Y (combines for obviousness) or A (background). Risk ratings reflect the impact on a typical independent claim.
RED findings must be addressed by claim amendment, design-around or opinion before reliance. AMBER findings require a documented position. GREEN findings are listed for completeness and IDS duty.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Output | Format | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Executive report | Searchable PDF | Opinion, tables and charts for the decision-maker |
| Working copy | DOCX | Editable by counsel for amendments and opinions |
| Source workbook | XLSX | Every reference, classification, family and status row |
| Appendix | PDF/A | Pinpoint copies of material references and NPL |
| Claim/claim-chart file | DOCX + XLSX | Color-coded element mapping with comments |
Matter: sale / license of a video-encoder patent family
Prepared for: IP holding company (fictional)
A valuation of a 6-patent family essential to a screen-content encoder. We used relief-from-royalty, discounted cash-flow and market-comparable methods, all cross-checked.
| Method | Key inputs | Value | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relief from royalty | 1.2% royalty, $1.4 B sales, 11 yr | $21.0 M | 50% |
| DCF | 15% discount, 8-yr forecast | $24.5 M | 25% |
| Market comps | 7 codec licenses | $18.2 M | 25% |
Searches combine classification-driven retrieval, free-text and semantic expansion, assignee/inventor harvesting, forward-and-backward citation snowballing and a non-patent literature sweep. Each reference is independently ranked by two reviewers.
| Stage | What we did | Sources | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope freeze | Confirm claims/features, dates, jurisdictions and decision to support | Client disclosure, inventors | Signed scope memo |
| Classification search | CPC/IPC/FI/F-term spine plus cross-class checks | USPTO, EPO, WIPO, CNIPA, JPO | Classification log |
| Keyword + semantic | Boolean strings + transformer-based vector search over 100M+ abstracts | PatBase, Orbit, Lens, Google Patents | Search strings log |
| Snowballing | Two citation generations forward/backward; assignee and inventor harvesting | Lens, PatBase | Candidate list |
| NPL & product sweep | Peer-reviewed, arXiv, standards, product manuals, teardowns, FDA/SEC | IEEE, ACM, arXiv, standards, web | NPL appendix |
| Ranking & QA | Two-reviewer X/Y/A coding; family & legal-status cross-check | Internal | Color-coded chart |
Findings are color-coded by relevance. References are coded X (anticipates), Y (combines for obviousness) or A (background). Risk ratings reflect the impact on a typical independent claim.
RED findings must be addressed by claim amendment, design-around or opinion before reliance. AMBER findings require a documented position. GREEN findings are listed for completeness and IDS duty.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Output | Format | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Executive report | Searchable PDF | Opinion, tables and charts for the decision-maker |
| Working copy | DOCX | Editable by counsel for amendments and opinions |
| Source workbook | XLSX | Every reference, classification, family and status row |
| Appendix | PDF/A | Pinpoint copies of material references and NPL |
| Claim/claim-chart file | DOCX + XLSX | Color-coded element mapping with comments |
Matter: market entry analysis
Prepared for: medtech board (fictional)
A market-research and patent-intelligence hybrid report on soft-tissue surgical robotics, covering TAM/SAM/SOM, buying centers, reimbursement and the patent landscape.
Searches combine classification-driven retrieval, free-text and semantic expansion, assignee/inventor harvesting, forward-and-backward citation snowballing and a non-patent literature sweep. Each reference is independently ranked by two reviewers.
| Stage | What we did | Sources | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope freeze | Confirm claims/features, dates, jurisdictions and decision to support | Client disclosure, inventors | Signed scope memo |
| Classification search | CPC/IPC/FI/F-term spine plus cross-class checks | USPTO, EPO, WIPO, CNIPA, JPO | Classification log |
| Keyword + semantic | Boolean strings + transformer-based vector search over 100M+ abstracts | PatBase, Orbit, Lens, Google Patents | Search strings log |
| Snowballing | Two citation generations forward/backward; assignee and inventor harvesting | Lens, PatBase | Candidate list |
| NPL & product sweep | Peer-reviewed, arXiv, standards, product manuals, teardowns, FDA/SEC | IEEE, ACM, arXiv, standards, web | NPL appendix |
| Ranking & QA | Two-reviewer X/Y/A coding; family & legal-status cross-check | Internal | Color-coded chart |
Findings are color-coded by relevance. References are coded X (anticipates), Y (combines for obviousness) or A (background). Risk ratings reflect the impact on a typical independent claim.
RED findings must be addressed by claim amendment, design-around or opinion before reliance. AMBER findings require a documented position. GREEN findings are listed for completeness and IDS duty.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Output | Format | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Executive report | Searchable PDF | Opinion, tables and charts for the decision-maker |
| Working copy | DOCX | Editable by counsel for amendments and opinions |
| Source workbook | XLSX | Every reference, classification, family and status row |
| Appendix | PDF/A | Pinpoint copies of material references and NPL |
| Claim/claim-chart file | DOCX + XLSX | Color-coded element mapping with comments |
Matter: carve-out licensing campaign
Prepared for: corporate IP team (fictional)
A divestiture-and-licensing program for 340 non-core assets: clustering, EoU-ready packages, target lists, and a 12-month monetization roadmap with expected proceeds.
Searches combine classification-driven retrieval, free-text and semantic expansion, assignee/inventor harvesting, forward-and-backward citation snowballing and a non-patent literature sweep. Each reference is independently ranked by two reviewers.
| Stage | What we did | Sources | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope freeze | Confirm claims/features, dates, jurisdictions and decision to support | Client disclosure, inventors | Signed scope memo |
| Classification search | CPC/IPC/FI/F-term spine plus cross-class checks | USPTO, EPO, WIPO, CNIPA, JPO | Classification log |
| Keyword + semantic | Boolean strings + transformer-based vector search over 100M+ abstracts | PatBase, Orbit, Lens, Google Patents | Search strings log |
| Snowballing | Two citation generations forward/backward; assignee and inventor harvesting | Lens, PatBase | Candidate list |
| NPL & product sweep | Peer-reviewed, arXiv, standards, product manuals, teardowns, FDA/SEC | IEEE, ACM, arXiv, standards, web | NPL appendix |
| Ranking & QA | Two-reviewer X/Y/A coding; family & legal-status cross-check | Internal | Color-coded chart |
Findings are color-coded by relevance. References are coded X (anticipates), Y (combines for obviousness) or A (background). Risk ratings reflect the impact on a typical independent claim.
RED findings must be addressed by claim amendment, design-around or opinion before reliance. AMBER findings require a documented position. GREEN findings are listed for completeness and IDS duty.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Output | Format | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Executive report | Searchable PDF | Opinion, tables and charts for the decision-maker |
| Working copy | DOCX | Editable by counsel for amendments and opinions |
| Source workbook | XLSX | Every reference, classification, family and status row |
| Appendix | PDF/A | Pinpoint copies of material references and NPL |
| Claim/claim-chart file | DOCX + XLSX | Color-coded element mapping with comments |
Matter: bilateral licensing of 4-patent family
Prepared for: audio OEM (fictional)
A licensing package including claim charts against four implementer products, comparable-licenses benchmark, damages model and term-sheet draft.
| Comparable | Field | Rate | Basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| License-A | BT audio | $0.85 | per unit |
| License-B | LE Audio | 1.1% | net sales |
| License-C | Wireless earbuds | $1.50 | per unit |
| License-D | Audio codec bundle | $1.10 | per unit |
Searches combine classification-driven retrieval, free-text and semantic expansion, assignee/inventor harvesting, forward-and-backward citation snowballing and a non-patent literature sweep. Each reference is independently ranked by two reviewers.
| Stage | What we did | Sources | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope freeze | Confirm claims/features, dates, jurisdictions and decision to support | Client disclosure, inventors | Signed scope memo |
| Classification search | CPC/IPC/FI/F-term spine plus cross-class checks | USPTO, EPO, WIPO, CNIPA, JPO | Classification log |
| Keyword + semantic | Boolean strings + transformer-based vector search over 100M+ abstracts | PatBase, Orbit, Lens, Google Patents | Search strings log |
| Snowballing | Two citation generations forward/backward; assignee and inventor harvesting | Lens, PatBase | Candidate list |
| NPL & product sweep | Peer-reviewed, arXiv, standards, product manuals, teardowns, FDA/SEC | IEEE, ACM, arXiv, standards, web | NPL appendix |
| Ranking & QA | Two-reviewer X/Y/A coding; family & legal-status cross-check | Internal | Color-coded chart |
Findings are color-coded by relevance. References are coded X (anticipates), Y (combines for obviousness) or A (background). Risk ratings reflect the impact on a typical independent claim.
RED findings must be addressed by claim amendment, design-around or opinion before reliance. AMBER findings require a documented position. GREEN findings are listed for completeness and IDS duty.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Output | Format | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Executive report | Searchable PDF | Opinion, tables and charts for the decision-maker |
| Working copy | DOCX | Editable by counsel for amendments and opinions |
| Source workbook | XLSX | Every reference, classification, family and status row |
| Appendix | PDF/A | Pinpoint copies of material references and NPL |
| Claim/claim-chart file | DOCX + XLSX | Color-coded element mapping with comments |
Matter: assertion candidate vs. AccuCharge Pro case
Prepared for: licensing program (fictional)
A court-ready EoU chart mapping claim 1 of US 8,xxx,xxx (adaptive wireless-charging case with foreign-object detection) against the AccuCharge Pro earbud case. Evidence comes from a teardown, FCC filing, user manual, marketing pages and oscilloscope captures of the charging waveform.
This deliverable expands the single-patent EoU into a 12-chart workbook covering three asserted patents and four accused products, with an index and a color-coded summary dashboard.
1. A wireless charging apparatus, comprising: a transmitter coil; a driver; a Q-factor measurement circuit; a controller that, prior to power transfer, applies a burst pulse, measures a resonant-ring Q-factor, and inhibits power transfer when Q is below a threshold stored in non-volatile memory.
| Asserted limitation | Evidence of use | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transmitter coil | Ex-07 teardown photo: A11 TX coil L1 | {'verdict': 'high'} | |
| Driver coupled to coil | Ex-03 FCC schematic shows BQ H-bridge U2 → L1 | {'verdict': 'high'} | |
| Q-factor measurement circuit | Ex-09 sense R14 + ADC A5; TP3 labeled 'Q' | {'verdict': 'high'} | |
| Controller applying burst pulse | Ex-15 scope: 30 µs 5 V burst at t=0 | {'verdict': 'high'} | |
| Measuring resonant-ring Q | Ex-16 ring-down; Q = 28 no object | {'verdict': 'high'} | |
| Inhibits transfer when Q below threshold | Ex-18 video: steel disc → red LED, no power | {'verdict': 'high'} | |
| Threshold in NVM | Ex-20 firmware strings: FOD_Q_THRESH = 22 | {'verdict': 'high'} |
All seven core limitations met literally; four additional dependent limitations met in the full chart.
All limitations are met literally, so DOE is pled only as an alternative for the Q-factor circuit in case of future firmware changes. Prosecution history shows no narrowing amendment on the Q-factor limitation, so DOE is available there.
Searches combine classification-driven retrieval, free-text and semantic expansion, assignee/inventor harvesting, forward-and-backward citation snowballing and a non-patent literature sweep. Each reference is independently ranked by two reviewers.
| Stage | What we did | Sources | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope freeze | Confirm claims/features, dates, jurisdictions and decision to support | Client disclosure, inventors | Signed scope memo |
| Classification search | CPC/IPC/FI/F-term spine plus cross-class checks | USPTO, EPO, WIPO, CNIPA, JPO | Classification log |
| Keyword + semantic | Boolean strings + transformer-based vector search over 100M+ abstracts | PatBase, Orbit, Lens, Google Patents | Search strings log |
| Snowballing | Two citation generations forward/backward; assignee and inventor harvesting | Lens, PatBase | Candidate list |
| NPL & product sweep | Peer-reviewed, arXiv, standards, product manuals, teardowns, FDA/SEC | IEEE, ACM, arXiv, standards, web | NPL appendix |
| Ranking & QA | Two-reviewer X/Y/A coding; family & legal-status cross-check | Internal | Color-coded chart |
Findings are color-coded by relevance. References are coded X (anticipates), Y (combines for obviousness) or A (background). Risk ratings reflect the impact on a typical independent claim.
RED findings must be addressed by claim amendment, design-around or opinion before reliance. AMBER findings require a documented position. GREEN findings are listed for completeness and IDS duty.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Output | Format | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Executive report | Searchable PDF | Opinion, tables and charts for the decision-maker |
| Working copy | DOCX | Editable by counsel for amendments and opinions |
| Source workbook | XLSX | Every reference, classification, family and status row |
| Appendix | PDF/A | Pinpoint copies of material references and NPL |
| Claim/claim-chart file | DOCX + XLSX | Color-coded element mapping with comments |
Matter: buy-side diligence on AI security start-up
Prepared for: acquiring company (fictional)
A buy-side IP-diligence report covering chain-of-title, encumbrances, open-source, FTO, material litigation, and employment/assignments for an AI security start-up ahead of a $180 M acquisition.
| Issue | Severity | Description | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unassigned founder IP | High | One co-founder never signed assignment | Pre-close assignment + escrow |
| GPL dependency in core | Medium | Copyleft in inference server | Replace + clean-room |
| Pending TM opposition | Low | House mark opposed in EU | Prosecute post-close |
Searches combine classification-driven retrieval, free-text and semantic expansion, assignee/inventor harvesting, forward-and-backward citation snowballing and a non-patent literature sweep. Each reference is independently ranked by two reviewers.
| Stage | What we did | Sources | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope freeze | Confirm claims/features, dates, jurisdictions and decision to support | Client disclosure, inventors | Signed scope memo |
| Classification search | CPC/IPC/FI/F-term spine plus cross-class checks | USPTO, EPO, WIPO, CNIPA, JPO | Classification log |
| Keyword + semantic | Boolean strings + transformer-based vector search over 100M+ abstracts | PatBase, Orbit, Lens, Google Patents | Search strings log |
| Snowballing | Two citation generations forward/backward; assignee and inventor harvesting | Lens, PatBase | Candidate list |
| NPL & product sweep | Peer-reviewed, arXiv, standards, product manuals, teardowns, FDA/SEC | IEEE, ACM, arXiv, standards, web | NPL appendix |
| Ranking & QA | Two-reviewer X/Y/A coding; family & legal-status cross-check | Internal | Color-coded chart |
Findings are color-coded by relevance. References are coded X (anticipates), Y (combines for obviousness) or A (background). Risk ratings reflect the impact on a typical independent claim.
RED findings must be addressed by claim amendment, design-around or opinion before reliance. AMBER findings require a documented position. GREEN findings are listed for completeness and IDS duty.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Output | Format | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Executive report | Searchable PDF | Opinion, tables and charts for the decision-maker |
| Working copy | DOCX | Editable by counsel for amendments and opinions |
| Source workbook | XLSX | Every reference, classification, family and status row |
| Appendix | PDF/A | Pinpoint copies of material references and NPL |
| Claim/claim-chart file | DOCX + XLSX | Color-coded element mapping with comments |
Matter: quarterly executive IP report
Prepared for: GC office (fictional)
A quarterly executive report summarizing the 40 active families, prosecution status, upcoming deadlines, key grants and maintenance decisions.
Searches combine classification-driven retrieval, free-text and semantic expansion, assignee/inventor harvesting, forward-and-backward citation snowballing and a non-patent literature sweep. Each reference is independently ranked by two reviewers.
| Stage | What we did | Sources | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope freeze | Confirm claims/features, dates, jurisdictions and decision to support | Client disclosure, inventors | Signed scope memo |
| Classification search | CPC/IPC/FI/F-term spine plus cross-class checks | USPTO, EPO, WIPO, CNIPA, JPO | Classification log |
| Keyword + semantic | Boolean strings + transformer-based vector search over 100M+ abstracts | PatBase, Orbit, Lens, Google Patents | Search strings log |
| Snowballing | Two citation generations forward/backward; assignee and inventor harvesting | Lens, PatBase | Candidate list |
| NPL & product sweep | Peer-reviewed, arXiv, standards, product manuals, teardowns, FDA/SEC | IEEE, ACM, arXiv, standards, web | NPL appendix |
| Ranking & QA | Two-reviewer X/Y/A coding; family & legal-status cross-check | Internal | Color-coded chart |
Findings are color-coded by relevance. References are coded X (anticipates), Y (combines for obviousness) or A (background). Risk ratings reflect the impact on a typical independent claim.
RED findings must be addressed by claim amendment, design-around or opinion before reliance. AMBER findings require a documented position. GREEN findings are listed for completeness and IDS duty.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Output | Format | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Executive report | Searchable PDF | Opinion, tables and charts for the decision-maker |
| Working copy | DOCX | Editable by counsel for amendments and opinions |
| Source workbook | XLSX | Every reference, classification, family and status row |
| Appendix | PDF/A | Pinpoint copies of material references and NPL |
| Claim/claim-chart file | DOCX + XLSX | Color-coded element mapping with comments |
Matter: VERA word + logo for fintech wallet (US, EU, UK, IN)
Prepared for: neobank client (fictional)
A full-word knockout + availability search for VERA in Class 9 (wallet software) and Class 36 (financial services). We searched USPTO, EUIPO, UKIPO, WIPO Madrid, Indian TM registry, state registers, domains, app stores and common-law uses.
VERA is available in Class 9 with a MEDIUM risk in Class 36 because of a live EU registration for VERA PAY. We recommend (a) a coexistence approach for Class 36, (b) a stylized-logo filing in both classes, and (c) immediate US + EU filing in Class 9.
| Mark | Owner | Cl. | Goods | Phon. | Vis. | Concept. | Commerce | Overall | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VERA PAY | Vera Pay SAS (fictional) | 36 | P2P payments EU | 95 | 80 | 90 | 90 | 89 | RED · live EU |
| VERA | Vera Health (fictional) | 44 | Telehealth | 100 | 100 | 40 | 20 | 48 | GREEN · different class |
| VERAWALLET | Abandoned 2022 | 9 | Wallet SW | 78 | 72 | 85 | 50 | 60 | AMBER · dead |
| VERO | Vero Financial | 36 | Banking | 70 | 60 | 55 | 70 | 64 | AMBER |
| VIRA | Vira Cards | 9 | Card app | 72 | 68 | 50 | 55 | 56 | AMBER |
| VERA | App store listing (IN) | 9 | Expenses app | 100 | 100 | 70 | 30 | 58 | AMBER · common law |
| Factor | VERA PAY (EU, Cl. 36) | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phonetic | 95/100 | High | Two syllables; both VEE-ruh |
| Visual | 80/100 | Med | Same first four letters; suffix differs |
| Conceptual | 90/100 | High | 'Vera' + payments, no other meaning |
| Goods relatedness | 90/100 | High | Both fintech P2P |
| Channels | 85/100 | High | App stores + online |
| Senior mark strength | 65/100 | Med | Suggestive, some third-party use |
| Overall | 89/100 — RED | — | Likely confusion in Class 36 |
Searching followed a four-stage clearance process. We began with a knockout screen for identical marks, then ran a full-word, phonetic and visual search, followed by a common-law/web sweep and a legal analysis under the governing likelihood-of-confusion test.
Findings are summarized in a risk matrix that combines conflict severity with the cost of mitigation. Filing strategy follows directly from this rating.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
Matter: USPTO §2(d) refusal of 'NORTHWIND LABS' (fictional)
Prepared for: SaaS startup (fictional)
A USPTO Office Action response package addressing a §2(d) likelihood-of-confusion refusal citing NORTHWIND DATA (fictional). The package includes a 13-factor DuPont analysis, evidence of lack of actual confusion, and a specimen amendment.
| DuPont factor | Evidence | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Similarity of marks | Different disclaimers: LABS vs DATA; different styling | Favors applicant |
| Similarity of goods | Applicant: developer tools; registrant: data analytics; distinct trade channels | Favors applicant |
| Fame | Registrant has 3rd-page Google rank, low sales in our channel | Favors applicant |
| Actual confusion | 5 years of coexistence; zero confusion evidence of record | Strongly favors applicant |
| Consent | Attempted; refused (argued as factor 13) | Neutral |
Searching followed a four-stage clearance process. We began with a knockout screen for identical marks, then ran a full-word, phonetic and visual search, followed by a common-law/web sweep and a legal analysis under the governing likelihood-of-confusion test.
Findings are summarized in a risk matrix that combines conflict severity with the cost of mitigation. Filing strategy follows directly from this rating.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
The deliverable is a searchable PDF report with an editable DOCX working copy and an XLSX hit workbook. Every entry links to the register record and a dated screenshot.
| Deliverable | Format | Contents |
|---|---|---|
| Clearance opinion | PDF + DOCX | Six-factor analysis, risk rating and filing recommendation |
| Hit workbook | XLSX | All hits with status, class, owner, goods and a color-coded score |
| Evidence pack | Archived register screenshots, common-law screenshots and WHOIS/RDAP | |
| Filing package (optional) | PDF + forms | Specimen, IDs, power of attorney and filing receipts |
Matter: watch of VERAWALLET and logo (fictional)
Prepared for: neobank client (fictional)
A quarterly trademark watch covering 41 jurisdictions, class 9/36/42, and the web. The report identifies 14 new filings, ranks them by risk, and recommends oppositions or coexistence discussions.
| Mark | Jurisdiction | Class | Risk | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VERA PAY | EUIPO | 36 | High | Oppose within 3 mo. |
| VERA WALLET (stylized) | UKIPO | 9 | Med | Coexist discussion |
| VERAFIN | USPTO | 36 | Med | Monitor |
| VERAWALLET.io | Domain | — | Low | UDRP / acquire |
Searching followed a four-stage clearance process. We began with a knockout screen for identical marks, then ran a full-word, phonetic and visual search, followed by a common-law/web sweep and a legal analysis under the governing likelihood-of-confusion test.
Findings are summarized in a risk matrix that combines conflict severity with the cost of mitigation. Filing strategy follows directly from this rating.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
The deliverable is a searchable PDF report with an editable DOCX working copy and an XLSX hit workbook. Every entry links to the register record and a dated screenshot.
| Deliverable | Format | Contents |
|---|---|---|
| Clearance opinion | PDF + DOCX | Six-factor analysis, risk rating and filing recommendation |
| Hit workbook | XLSX | All hits with status, class, owner, goods and a color-coded score |
| Evidence pack | Archived register screenshots, common-law screenshots and WHOIS/RDAP | |
| Filing package (optional) | PDF + forms | Specimen, IDs, power of attorney and filing receipts |
Matter: IR application for 'KAIROS' logo (fictional)
Prepared for: consumer brand (fictional)
A Madrid Protocol IR application covering 18 designated jurisdictions in classes 18 and 25, with a US §1(b), EUIPO direct filing, and UK national application as parallel tracks.
Searching followed a four-stage clearance process. We began with a knockout screen for identical marks, then ran a full-word, phonetic and visual search, followed by a common-law/web sweep and a legal analysis under the governing likelihood-of-confusion test.
Findings are summarized in a risk matrix that combines conflict severity with the cost of mitigation. Filing strategy follows directly from this rating.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
The deliverable is a searchable PDF report with an editable DOCX working copy and an XLSX hit workbook. Every entry links to the register record and a dated screenshot.
| Deliverable | Format | Contents |
|---|---|---|
| Clearance opinion | PDF + DOCX | Six-factor analysis, risk rating and filing recommendation |
| Hit workbook | XLSX | All hits with status, class, owner, goods and a color-coded score |
| Evidence pack | Archived register screenshots, common-law screenshots and WHOIS/RDAP | |
| Filing package (optional) | PDF + forms | Specimen, IDs, power of attorney and filing receipts |
Matter: rebrand of a SaaS platform (fictional)
Prepared for: product marketing (fictional)
A trademark architecture and filing plan for a rebrand: house mark 'NORTHWIND' plus 11 sub-brands. The report includes a name-clearance heatmap, an 18-month filing calendar and an enforcement ladder.
Searching followed a four-stage clearance process. We began with a knockout screen for identical marks, then ran a full-word, phonetic and visual search, followed by a common-law/web sweep and a legal analysis under the governing likelihood-of-confusion test.
Findings are summarized in a risk matrix that combines conflict severity with the cost of mitigation. Filing strategy follows directly from this rating.
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
The deliverable is a searchable PDF report with an editable DOCX working copy and an XLSX hit workbook. Every entry links to the register record and a dated screenshot.
| Deliverable | Format | Contents |
|---|---|---|
| Clearance opinion | PDF + DOCX | Six-factor analysis, risk rating and filing recommendation |
| Hit workbook | XLSX | All hits with status, class, owner, goods and a color-coded score |
| Evidence pack | Archived register screenshots, common-law screenshots and WHOIS/RDAP | |
| Filing package (optional) | PDF + forms | Specimen, IDs, power of attorney and filing receipts |
Matter: non-provisional for 'Kairo Buds' adaptive ANC
Prepared for: audio hardware client (fictional)
A full non-provisional patent application drafted from an inventor disclosure, bench data, and a teardown of a competitor product. The application includes 20 claims (3 independent), a detailed description with 6 embodiments, and a 7-sheet formal drawing set. The deliverable is a tracked-changes Word draft plus a clean PDF and an inventor-review memo.
| Section | Pages | Key content |
|---|---|---|
| Title / cross-references | 1 | Title: 'Adaptive noise cancellation using an in-ear microphone' |
| Background | 2 | Problem with occlusion; why static filters fail |
| Summary | 3 | Three independent claim directions listed as advantages |
| Brief description of drawings | 2 | 7 figures enumerated |
| Detailed description | 28 | 6 embodiments; apparatus, method, CRM, fit-detection, voice-assistant integration |
| Claims | 8 | 20 claims, 3 independent |
| Abstract | 1 | One paragraph, ≤150 words |
Independent claim 1 (apparatus): 1. An earbud, comprising: a housing configured for insertion into an ear; a reference microphone; an error microphone positioned to sense sound inside the ear; a speaker; an adaptive filter that generates an anti-noise signal from the reference microphone and an error signal from the error microphone; and a fit detector, wherein the adaptive filter is configured to re-initialize from a stored fit profile in response to a change in detected fit within 200 ms.
Independent claim 10 (method): A method of adapting active noise cancellation, comprising: sensing an external reference signal; sensing an in-ear error signal; updating an adaptive filter at a first rate; detecting fit from a capacitance sensor; and in response to a fit change, resetting the adaptive filter to a fit profile and updating at a second, faster rate for a settling interval.
The draft was reviewed by a patent agent and a technical reviewer. Claims were mapped back to the specification paragraph-by-paragraph; each reference character is used in the drawings and description; no §112 issues identified.
Every operations deliverable follows a documented intake, preparation, maker-checker review and release workflow. Source documents are version-controlled and every item is reconciled to an official record before release.
Each preparation cycle logs exceptions, open items and practitioner approvals. Exceptions are not closed until the responsible practitioner signs off.
| Exception type | Example | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Missing signature | Inventor declaration unsigned | Request e-signature; do not file until received |
| Date mismatch | Docket vs. PADS differs by 3 days | Reconcile to official record, correct docket |
| Entity status change | Client now large entity | Recalculate fees; obtain updated certification |
| Missing assignment | Co-inventor IP not assigned | Prepare assignment; record with USPTO |
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
Matter: non-provisional for 'Kairo Buds' adaptive ANC
Prepared for: audio hardware client (fictional)
A 7-sheet formal drawing set for the adaptive-ANC earbud application, prepared to 37 CFR 1.84 and EPC Rule 46. Black-and-white line art, 0.35 mm strokes, 24 pt reference numerals, correct margins. The same set is provided in editable vector (AI/SVG), PDF and 300-DPI TIFF.
| Numeral | Element | Figures |
|---|---|---|
| 100 | Earbud assembly | 1–7 |
| 102 | Housing | 1–5 |
| 104 | Reference mic | 1, 2, 6 |
| 106 | Error mic | 1, 2, 6 |
| 108 | Speaker / driver | 1, 2, 6 |
| 110 | ANC DSP | 2, 6 |
| 112 | Fit detector (cap-sense) | 1, 3, 7 |
| 114 | Memory | 2, 6 |
| 116 | Battery | 6 |
| 118 | BLE radio | 6 |
Every operations deliverable follows a documented intake, preparation, maker-checker review and release workflow. Source documents are version-controlled and every item is reconciled to an official record before release.
Each preparation cycle logs exceptions, open items and practitioner approvals. Exceptions are not closed until the responsible practitioner signs off.
| Exception type | Example | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Missing signature | Inventor declaration unsigned | Request e-signature; do not file until received |
| Date mismatch | Docket vs. PADS differs by 3 days | Reconcile to official record, correct docket |
| Entity status change | Client now large entity | Recalculate fees; obtain updated certification |
| Missing assignment | Co-inventor IP not assigned | Prepare assignment; record with USPTO |
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Item | Format | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Filing-ready forms | PDF + editable DOCX | Current office versions, signature-ready |
| Cover memo | Matter summary, items filed, receipts and next deadlines | |
| Supporting exhibits | PDF/A | OCR'd, bookmarked and cross-referenced |
| Docket entry | CSV / API | Pushed to the client's docket with 60/30/7-day reminders |
Matter: non-provisional e-filing 17/xxx,xxx
Prepared for: outside counsel (fictional)
A validated Patent Center e-filing package: specification, claims, abstract, drawings, ADS, inventor declarations, assignments and fees. Same-day filing with confirmation number and application number.
| Check | Result |
|---|---|
| PDF/A | PASS |
| Sections present | PASS |
| Claims numbered | PASS — 20 |
| Drawings 1.84 | PASS — 7 sheets |
| Abstract words | PASS — 138 |
| Entity status | PASS — small |
| Fees | PASS — no surcharge |
| Signature | PASS — S-signature |
Every operations deliverable follows a documented intake, preparation, maker-checker review and release workflow. Source documents are version-controlled and every item is reconciled to an official record before release.
Each preparation cycle logs exceptions, open items and practitioner approvals. Exceptions are not closed until the responsible practitioner signs off.
| Exception type | Example | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Missing signature | Inventor declaration unsigned | Request e-signature; do not file until received |
| Date mismatch | Docket vs. PADS differs by 3 days | Reconcile to official record, correct docket |
| Entity status change | Client now large entity | Recalculate fees; obtain updated certification |
| Missing assignment | Co-inventor IP not assigned | Prepare assignment; record with USPTO |
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Item | Format | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Filing-ready forms | PDF + editable DOCX | Current office versions, signature-ready |
| Cover memo | Matter summary, items filed, receipts and next deadlines | |
| Supporting exhibits | PDF/A | OCR'd, bookmarked and cross-referenced |
| Docket entry | CSV / API | Pushed to the client's docket with 60/30/7-day reminders |
Matter: three-inventor non-provisional formalities
Prepared for: startup (fictional)
A formalities package: ADS (PTO/AIA/14), three inventor oaths/declarations (PTO/AIA/08), three recorded assignments (PTO/AIA/16), power of attorney and entity-status certification.
Every operations deliverable follows a documented intake, preparation, maker-checker review and release workflow. Source documents are version-controlled and every item is reconciled to an official record before release.
Each preparation cycle logs exceptions, open items and practitioner approvals. Exceptions are not closed until the responsible practitioner signs off.
| Exception type | Example | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Missing signature | Inventor declaration unsigned | Request e-signature; do not file until received |
| Date mismatch | Docket vs. PADS differs by 3 days | Reconcile to official record, correct docket |
| Entity status change | Client now large entity | Recalculate fees; obtain updated certification |
| Missing assignment | Co-inventor IP not assigned | Prepare assignment; record with USPTO |
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Item | Format | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Filing-ready forms | PDF + editable DOCX | Current office versions, signature-ready |
| Cover memo | Matter summary, items filed, receipts and next deadlines | |
| Supporting exhibits | PDF/A | OCR'd, bookmarked and cross-referenced |
| Docket entry | CSV / API | Pushed to the client's docket with 60/30/7-day reminders |
Matter: 60-family prosecution support book
Prepared for: outside counsel (fictional)
Ongoing prosecution support for a 60-family book: docketing, IDS preparation, Office Action tracking, and examiner-interview prep. This sample shows one month's output across the book.
| Matter | Event | Due | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| US 17/4xx,xxx | Office Action response | 2026-02-09 | Draft with counsel |
| EP 21xxxxxx.x | Rule 71(3) fees | 2026-02-18 | Awaiting client |
| JP 2020-xxxxxx | Annual fee Y6 | 2026-02-22 | Payment queued |
| US 17/8yy,yyy | Issue fee | 2026-03-06 | To pay |
Every operations deliverable follows a documented intake, preparation, maker-checker review and release workflow. Source documents are version-controlled and every item is reconciled to an official record before release.
Each preparation cycle logs exceptions, open items and practitioner approvals. Exceptions are not closed until the responsible practitioner signs off.
| Exception type | Example | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Missing signature | Inventor declaration unsigned | Request e-signature; do not file until received |
| Date mismatch | Docket vs. PADS differs by 3 days | Reconcile to official record, correct docket |
| Entity status change | Client now large entity | Recalculate fees; obtain updated certification |
| Missing assignment | Co-inventor IP not assigned | Prepare assignment; record with USPTO |
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Item | Format | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Filing-ready forms | PDF + editable DOCX | Current office versions, signature-ready |
| Cover memo | Matter summary, items filed, receipts and next deadlines | |
| Supporting exhibits | PDF/A | OCR'd, bookmarked and cross-referenced |
| Docket entry | CSV / API | Pushed to the client's docket with 60/30/7-day reminders |
Matter: Aether Therapeutics KRAS family
Prepared for: outside counsel (fictional)
An Information Disclosure Statement listing 16 US patents, 3 published applications, 2 foreign office actions and 1 NPL reference, each with legible copies and concise relevance per 37 CFR 1.98(b). Filed within the §1.97(b) window — no fee or §1.97(e) statement required.
| # | Reference | Owner | Date | Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US 10,xxx,xxx B2 | Aether (fictional) | 2020-01-28 | Same priority family; genus |
| 2 | US 10,yyy,yyy B2 | Rival Pharma | 2020-05-26 | Closest prior art |
| 3 | EP 3 555 110 A1 | HelixBio | 2019-10-23 | Salt forms; dependent claim 9 |
| … | 19 more in the full IDS | — | — | — |
Every operations deliverable follows a documented intake, preparation, maker-checker review and release workflow. Source documents are version-controlled and every item is reconciled to an official record before release.
Each preparation cycle logs exceptions, open items and practitioner approvals. Exceptions are not closed until the responsible practitioner signs off.
| Exception type | Example | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Missing signature | Inventor declaration unsigned | Request e-signature; do not file until received |
| Date mismatch | Docket vs. PADS differs by 3 days | Reconcile to official record, correct docket |
| Entity status change | Client now large entity | Recalculate fees; obtain updated certification |
| Missing assignment | Co-inventor IP not assigned | Prepare assignment; record with USPTO |
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Item | Format | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Filing-ready forms | PDF + editable DOCX | Current office versions, signature-ready |
| Cover memo | Matter summary, items filed, receipts and next deadlines | |
| Supporting exhibits | PDF/A | OCR'd, bookmarked and cross-referenced |
| Docket entry | CSV / API | Pushed to the client's docket with 60/30/7-day reminders |
Matter: pre-filing QA on a 38-page non-provisional
Prepared for: outside counsel (fictional)
A two-pass proofread covering spec-to-claims consistency, claim dependency, antecedent basis, reference-numeral consistency and formal-drawing compliance. 14 issues logged and fixed before filing.
| # | Location | Issue | Severity | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claim 3 | Missing antecedent for 'the fit profile' | Critical | Added 'a fit profile' in claim 1 |
| 2 | ¶0042 vs FIG. 4 | Numeral 116 not used in spec | High | Added numeral in battery paragraph |
| 3 | FIG. 6 | Lead line crosses another line | Med | Re-routed in drawing |
| 4 | Abstract | 158 words (limit 150) | Med | Trimmed to 142 |
Every operations deliverable follows a documented intake, preparation, maker-checker review and release workflow. Source documents are version-controlled and every item is reconciled to an official record before release.
Each preparation cycle logs exceptions, open items and practitioner approvals. Exceptions are not closed until the responsible practitioner signs off.
| Exception type | Example | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Missing signature | Inventor declaration unsigned | Request e-signature; do not file until received |
| Date mismatch | Docket vs. PADS differs by 3 days | Reconcile to official record, correct docket |
| Entity status change | Client now large entity | Recalculate fees; obtain updated certification |
| Missing assignment | Co-inventor IP not assigned | Prepare assignment; record with USPTO |
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Item | Format | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Filing-ready forms | PDF + editable DOCX | Current office versions, signature-ready |
| Cover memo | Matter summary, items filed, receipts and next deadlines | |
| Supporting exhibits | PDF/A | OCR'd, bookmarked and cross-referenced |
| Docket entry | CSV / API | Pushed to the client's docket with 60/30/7-day reminders |
Matter: Meridian 60-family Q1 docket
Prepared for: Meridian IP ops (fictional)
A reconciled docket schedule cross-checked against USPTO Patent Center/PEDS, EP Register, WIPO Madrid and the client's records. Critical dates carry a 60/30/7-day reminder cascade.
| Date | Matter | Event | Jurisdiction | Owner | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-01-19 | US 17/4xx,xxx | Office Action response | USPTO | J. Okafor | RED — 9 days |
| 2026-01-28 | EP 21999999.0 | Examination fee | EP | R. Klein | RED — 18 days |
| 2026-02-03 | PCT/US2024/0xxxxx | 30-mo national phase | PCT | M. Tan | RED — 24 days |
| 2026-02-11 | TM 'MERIDIAN EDGE' | Statement of Use | USPTO TM | L. Souza | AMBER — 32 days |
RED = action within 30 days; AMBER = 31–60 days.
Every operations deliverable follows a documented intake, preparation, maker-checker review and release workflow. Source documents are version-controlled and every item is reconciled to an official record before release.
Each preparation cycle logs exceptions, open items and practitioner approvals. Exceptions are not closed until the responsible practitioner signs off.
| Exception type | Example | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Missing signature | Inventor declaration unsigned | Request e-signature; do not file until received |
| Date mismatch | Docket vs. PADS differs by 3 days | Reconcile to official record, correct docket |
| Entity status change | Client now large entity | Recalculate fees; obtain updated certification |
| Missing assignment | Co-inventor IP not assigned | Prepare assignment; record with USPTO |
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Item | Format | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Filing-ready forms | PDF + editable DOCX | Current office versions, signature-ready |
| Cover memo | Matter summary, items filed, receipts and next deadlines | |
| Supporting exhibits | PDF/A | OCR'd, bookmarked and cross-referenced |
| Docket entry | CSV / API | Pushed to the client's docket with 60/30/7-day reminders |
Matter: Meridian global annuity forecast
Prepared for: Meridian finance (fictional)
A 12-month annuity and maintenance-fee forecast across 18 jurisdictions, with an abandon-or-maintain decision list for 14 high-cost cases.
Every operations deliverable follows a documented intake, preparation, maker-checker review and release workflow. Source documents are version-controlled and every item is reconciled to an official record before release.
Each preparation cycle logs exceptions, open items and practitioner approvals. Exceptions are not closed until the responsible practitioner signs off.
| Exception type | Example | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Missing signature | Inventor declaration unsigned | Request e-signature; do not file until received |
| Date mismatch | Docket vs. PADS differs by 3 days | Reconcile to official record, correct docket |
| Entity status change | Client now large entity | Recalculate fees; obtain updated certification |
| Missing assignment | Co-inventor IP not assigned | Prepare assignment; record with USPTO |
A representative reference list is shown below. The full report appendix contains a separate row per reference with family data, legal status, pinpoint citations and copies.
| Item | Format | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Filing-ready forms | PDF + editable DOCX | Current office versions, signature-ready |
| Cover memo | Matter summary, items filed, receipts and next deadlines | |
| Supporting exhibits | PDF/A | OCR'd, bookmarked and cross-referenced |
| Docket entry | CSV / API | Pushed to the client's docket with 60/30/7-day reminders |