Perfect for
Traditional prior art searches require 12-20 hours of manual work across multiple patent and non-patent databases, delaying filing decisions and prosecution strategy. Attorneys must manually develop search queries, review hundreds of references, and compile detailed patentability analyses while ensuring no critical prior art is overlooked.
Traditional prior art searches require 12-20 hours of manual work across multiple patent and non-patent databases, delaying filing decisions and prosecution strategy. Attorneys must manually develop search queries, review hundreds of references, and compile detailed patentability analyses while ensuring no critical prior art is overlooked.
CaseMark automates the entire prior art search workflow, simultaneously searching USPTO, EPO, WIPO, Google Patents, Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, and technical databases. It generates comprehensive patentability reports with relevance scoring, claim-by-claim analysis, and actionable prosecution recommendations in under 30 minutes.
This workflow is applicable across multiple practice areas and use cases
Prior art searches are critical for invalidity defenses in patent infringement litigation and for assessing the strength of asserted patents before trial.
IP litigators routinely conduct prior art searches to challenge patent validity, support non-infringement arguments, and evaluate litigation risk in patent disputes.
Patent prior art analysis is essential during M&A due diligence to assess the validity and strength of target company patent portfolios and identify potential IP risks.
M&A attorneys need to evaluate patent quality and enforceability as part of IP due diligence, which requires prior art searches to determine if patents could be challenged post-acquisition.
VC and PE investors require prior art analysis during investment due diligence to validate the strength and defensibility of portfolio company patent assets.
Investment decisions in technology companies heavily depend on IP portfolio quality, making prior art searches crucial for assessing patent validity and competitive positioning before funding.
Prior art searches support patent strategy for pharmaceutical and medical device companies navigating FDA approval processes and patent term extensions.
FDA-regulated industries rely heavily on patent protection, requiring prior art analysis to secure strong patents, evaluate competitor patents, and develop freedom-to-operate strategies.
CaseMark searches all major patent databases (USPTO, EPO, WIPO, Google Patents) and non-patent literature sources (Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, arXiv, and technical journals) using multiple search strategies. The system generates Boolean queries with classification codes, analyzes technical synonyms, and searches across different timeframes to identify both foundational and recent prior art. Each reference is documented with complete citations and relevance scoring.
The analysis includes claim-by-claim assessment against all discovered prior art, novelty evaluation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, obviousness analysis under § 103 with specific reference combinations, and identification of distinguishing features. CaseMark provides relevance scores for each reference, maps which claim elements are disclosed, and recommends allowable claim scope based on the prior art landscape.
CaseMark generates specific recommendations for claim amendments to overcome prior art, distinguishing arguments, and additional dependent claims to strengthen the application. The report includes prosecution priorities, potential continuation strategies, and specification amendments if needed. This enables attorneys to develop informed filing and prosecution strategies before submitting to the USPTO.
Yes, the generated report is formatted for professional use and includes all elements required for informed prosecution decisions and potential IDS (Information Disclosure Statement) submission. All citations are verified, references are properly documented, and the analysis is objective and thorough. Attorneys should review and supplement the report as needed for their specific filing requirements.
CaseMark analyzes each reference against specific claim elements and technical features to assign relevance scores on a 1-10 scale. The system evaluates technical similarity, disclosure of claim elements, and legal significance for both anticipation and obviousness. References are categorized as highly relevant, moderately relevant, or tangentially relevant, with detailed explanations for each score to support attorney decision-making.