Coverage
See what was checked before anyone relies on it.
Each report shows the records searched, the evidence cited, the sources not included, and the follow-up work that still needs professional judgment.
Search areas
What can be checked
Start with the legal question and the materials you trust: target records, date limits, jurisdictions, known references, excluded families, sources to include, and output needed. The sample report shows the same coverage posture in one place.
Patent publication records
- Checked
- Publication numbers, titles, abstracts, dates, assignees, family context, and citation-ready record details when available.
- Good for
- Novelty, patentability, invalidity, freedom-to-operate scouting, landscape, and diligence reports.
- Watch-outs
- Official office records still control. Reports keep publication details visible so reviewers can verify the record before relying on it.
Claims and specification text
- Checked
- US claim and description text where available, plus global titles and abstracts for broader discovery.
- Good for
- Strongest for US text; broader global full-text coverage varies by source.
- Watch-outs
- Non-US full text, translations, amended claims, and file-history context may need follow-up review outside the first report.
Families, dates, and self-art risk
- Checked
- Family grouping, priority-date context, candidate qualification notes, known-reference recovery, and records outside the searched collection.
- Good for
- Included in practitioner reports when the facts are available.
- Watch-outs
- Priority, family, and self-reference calls are review issues. The report exposes the facts and uncertainty; counsel makes the decision.
Legal-status and ownership signals
- Checked
- Legal-status and assignment fields when available or included in the requested work.
- Good for
- Useful early signal for follow-up review.
- Watch-outs
- Not a clearance, chain-of-title, maintenance-fee, litigation, standards, or encumbrance opinion. Treat these as prompts for authoritative follow-up.
Known references and exclusions
- Checked
- References supplied by the practitioner are marked found, missing, excluded, outside the search, or not evaluated.
- Good for
- Keeps known art and exclusions visible across the report.
- Watch-outs
- A missing known reference is not hidden. It becomes a visible follow-up item instead of being smoothed into the narrative.
NPL, standards, products, and web materials
- Checked
- Scoped non-patent sources can be requested, quoted, and recorded as part of a matter-specific search plan.
- Good for
- Matter-specific add-on work when non-patent evidence matters.
- Watch-outs
- If these sources are not requested or not available, reports mark them as not checked rather than implying coverage.
Use cases
Different IP questions need different evidence.
The report should make the next review step obvious: compare a disclosure, test claim limitations, screen a product feature, or organize a landscape.
Novelty and patentability
Compare a disclosure or draft claim set against cited publications, with differences and open searches visible.
Invalidity and obviousness support
Map claim limitations to candidate references and preserve gaps or partial support for attorney review.
Feature-risk scout
Screen product features by jurisdiction and act without presenting the result as a clearance or non-infringement opinion.
Landscape and diligence
Organize technology, portfolio, assignee, and coverage assumptions so follow-up work is easier to scope.
Report contents
What a reviewer should see in the report
The report should carry the search plan, evidence, exclusions, and open questions forward so the next person does not have to infer what happened.
- Search plan
- Objective, jurisdictions or collections, date windows, known references, exclusions, and requested deliverable.
- Sources checked
- Patent records, abstracts, US claims and descriptions, non-US text availability, legal-status, assignment, and NPL status when included.
- Known references
- Supplied references marked found, missing, excluded, outside the search, or not evaluated.
- Coverage limits
- What was partial, not requested, unavailable, or out of scope.
- Searches completed
- Which search paths completed, which were skipped, and why.
- Attorney review
- Selected evidence, assumptions, currency, open review, and export readiness.
Before reliance
No black-box promises.
A search report should make follow-up work easier to scope. It should not make unresolved coverage limits look resolved.
- Public demo data is a sample review set, not a paid search or currentness statement.
- Live searches start only after account setup, terms, authorization confirmation, and price approval.
- Coverage is matter-specific. Request a deeper search when NPL, non-US full text, legal status, assignments, standards, or products are material.
- ipstrategy.tech provides search and analysis support for practitioner review. It does not decide patentability, validity, infringement, enforceability, or clearance.