--- name: patent description: > Patent research and IP landscape: prior-art search, claim mapping, landscape analysis, and freedom-to-operate. Use when conducting a prior-art search, mapping an IP landscape, evaluating patentability, or running an FTO analysis. license: MIT + Commons Clause metadata: version: 1.0.0 author: borghei category: research domain: research updated: 2026-05-27 tags: [patent, ip, prior-art, freedom-to-operate, patentability, claims, landscape] --- # 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. ```bash 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. ```bash 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. ```bash 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