Patent Research

A research-focused patent skill (not legal filing). Covers prior-art search, IP landscape mapping, claim analysis, freedom-to-operate, and patentability. For formal patent prosecution, work with a licensed patent attorney.

When to use this skill

• Conducting a prior-art search before filing a provisional patent
• Mapping the IP landscape in a technology area
• Evaluating the patentability of an invention
• Assessing freedom-to-operate before launching a product
• Tracking competitive patent activity in a market
• Preparing a patent strategy for a startup or R&D group

Inputs the advisor expects

• Invention description (problem, solution, novelty)
• Technology area + relevant CPC/IPC classifications
• Target jurisdictions (US, EU, JP, CN — IP is jurisdictional)
• Existing prior art known (key references)
• Competitor list
• Timeline pressure (filing deadline, product launch)

Clarify First

Before running the analysis, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:

• Analysis type (prior-art search, patentability, FTO, or landscape) — these are different deliverables with different methods and outputs
• Invention description (problem, solution, novelty) — drives the claims and search classifications
• Target jurisdictions (US, EU, JP, CN) — IP is jurisdictional; changes FTO scope and filing strategy
• Technology area + CPC/IPC classifications — drives a search beyond keywords (which misses synonyms/translations)

Stop rule: ask only the 2-3 that most change the output. If the user says "just draft it," proceed and list your assumptions at the top of the artifact.

Workflows

Workflow 1 — Plan a prior-art search

1. Define invention claims (key novel features).
2. Identify search classifications (CPC / IPC) + keywords.
3. Run prior_art_search_planner.py to produce a search plan.
4. Execute on USPTO / EPO / Espacenet / Google Patents / WIPO.

python3 patent/scripts/prior_art_search_planner.py \
  --input invention.json --format markdown

Workflow 2 — Map the IP landscape

1. Capture identified patents (yours, competitors', adjacent).
2. Run claim_landscape_mapper.py to cluster by claim type, owner, technology subarea, recency; surface white space + crowded areas.

python3 patent/scripts/claim_landscape_mapper.py \
  --input patents.json --format markdown

Workflow 3 — Score patentability of an invention

1. Capture invention + closest prior art.
2. Run patentability_scorer.py to rate novelty, non-obviousness, utility, subject matter eligibility.

python3 patent/scripts/patentability_scorer.py \
  --input patentability.json --format markdown

Decision frameworks

The three patentability criteria (US baseline)

1. Novelty (35 USC §102): not previously disclosed
2. Non-obviousness (35 USC §103): not obvious to person skilled in the art
3. Utility (35 USC §101): useful, with practical application

Plus:

• Subject matter eligibility (§101): not abstract idea, not law of nature
• Enablement (§112): described well enough to be made by skilled artisan
• Definiteness (§112): claims clearly distinguish

Prior-art categories

• Patents (issued + published applications)
• Non-patent literature (papers, conference, dissertations, technical reports)
• Commercial products (sold publicly before filing)
• Public disclosures (talks, demos, blog posts — yes, including your own > 1 year prior)
• Sales activity (offers for sale, even pre-launch)

Inventors often miss non-patent prior art; this is where searches break.

Freedom-to-operate (FTO)

Different from patentability. FTO asks: can I commercialize without infringing someone else's patent?

• Patentability ≠ FTO (your patent could still infringe another)
• FTO is jurisdiction-specific
• Active patents only (not expired); typically 20 years from filing
• Patent attorney involvement essential for formal opinion

IP strategy by stage

• Pre-seed: capture inventions; consider provisional filings; don't over-file
• Seed/Series A: strategic provisionals; key utility filings
• Series B+: PCT international; continuations to maintain pendency
• Mature: portfolio management; licensing; enforcement

Common engagements

"We have a new algorithm. Should we patent?"

1. Subject matter eligibility check (§101 — algorithms are tricky)
2. Prior art search (someone has probably published)
3. Strategic value (does patent enable / defend a business position?)
4. Cost-benefit ($5-25K provisional; $30-100K full prosecution)
5. Often answer: keep as trade secret, not patent

"Run an FTO before our launch"

1. Identify candidate blocking patents (search + competitor review)
2. For each: review claims; assess infringement risk
3. Identify mitigations: design-around, license, abandon, challenge
4. Get formal opinion from patent counsel (insurance against willful infringement)

"Map the patent landscape in our space"

1. Identify key players (companies + universities)
2. Search by classification + keyword
3. Cluster: by company, by sub-technology, by year
4. Surface white space (uncovered areas) + crowded zones
5. Strategy implications (where to play, where to design-around)

Anti-patterns to avoid

• Searching only keywords (no classification). Misses translations + synonyms.
• Searching only USPTO. EPO + WIPO + JP have unique art.
• Searching only patents. Non-patent prior art is huge.
• Public disclosure before filing. Loses patentability outside US (1-year grace in US only).
• Filing without prior-art search. Reviewer finds it; patent invalid.
• No FTO before product launch. Surprise injunctions.
• Patenting everything. $30K per patent adds up; portfolio bloat distracts.
• Filing without commercial strategy. Patents are means, not ends.

References

• references/prior-art-search-strategy.md — search databases, classifications, query patterns
• references/claim-mapping-and-landscape.md — claim analysis, landscape visualization
• references/freedom-to-operate-and-patentability.md — FTO process, patentability criteria

Related skills

• legal/contract-review — IP licensing contracts
• c-level-advisor/general-counsel-advisor — strategic IP counsel
• research/litreview — non-patent literature search overlap