Patent Litigation and Infringement Risk Analysis
When a demand letter or complaint arrives, the first thing needed is not a general opinion but an ordered list: which defenses are worth resources, in what sequence, and what each one depends on. This report integrates the patent family and prosecution history, prior art, claim construction, product evidence, and procedural facts into that ordering.
Request this serviceClaim construction and element-by-element analysis
Terms are construed under Phillips with intrinsic evidence anchored first. Infringement is then mapped element by element for literal reading and under the doctrine of equivalents, including the Festo categories of rebuttal, alongside the §271 liability paths in play.
Invalidity ranking and PTAB readiness
Grounds under §102, §103 (Graham and KSR) and §112 are ranked rather than listed. Procedural feasibility is assessed alongside them, because a strong ground is worth little if the window has closed.
- IPR readiness assessment
- §315(b) service clock
- §325(d) discretionary denial exposure
- Real party in interest and privity check
Search coverage and evidence integrity
Coverage is disclosed rather than implied, and every cited reference is preserved as an immutable copy with a computed hash so that the version relied on can be proven later. Key propositions are located to a specific paragraph, line, or figure reference.
- USPTO full text and global patent discovery
- CN, JP and KR targeted searching
- EPO OPS family verification
- Non-patent literature across PubMed, OpenAlex, Crossref and Semantic Scholar
Common questions
Is this a formal opinion of counsel?
It is a structured risk analysis prepared to support decisions and, where appropriate, to serve as the factual foundation for a formal opinion. Whether a formal opinion is issued, and its scope and reliance terms, is agreed separately for the specific matter.
Why is the evidence delivered separately from the report?
So that a third party — co-counsel, an expert, or the other side — can verify a cited reference without taking the report's characterization of it on trust. A conclusion that cannot be checked independently is not much use in a contested matter.