Data coverage
What gets searched, recorded, and left for follow-up.
Practitioners should be able to see the reviewed source classes, the search branches that ran, and the limits that still need human judgment. Coverage is shown as part of the work product, not buried in vendor-style assurances.
Source classes
Coverage by search area
The product is strongest when the practitioner frames the matter: target records, date limits, jurisdictions, known references, excluded families, source expectations, and desired output.
| Area | What the packet can search or record | Current support | Limits to verify |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patent publication records | Publication numbers, titles, abstracts, dates, assignees, family context, and citation-ready record metadata when returned by the connected search source. | Core patent-search workflows | Official office records still control. Reports keep publication details visible so reviewers can verify the record before relying on it. |
| Claims and specification text | US claim and description text where available, plus global title and abstract coverage for broader discovery branches. | Strongest for US text; broader global text varies by source | Non-US full text, translations, amended claims, and file-history context may need follow-up review outside the first packet. |
| Families, dates, and self-art risk | Family grouping, priority-date boundaries, candidate qualification notes, known-reference recovery, and outside-corpus flags. | Included in practitioner packets when source data is available | Priority, family, and self-reference calls are review issues. The packet exposes the facts and uncertainty; counsel makes the decision. |
| Legal-status and ownership signals | Legal-status and assignment fields when available from connected sources or included in the requested scope. | Partial source check | 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 | References supplied by the practitioner are marked recovered, missing, excluded, outside the reviewed corpus, or not evaluated. | Scope-control feature across search workflows | 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 | Scoped non-patent sources can be requested, quoted, and recorded as part of a matter-specific search plan. | Matter-specific add-on scope | If these sources are not requested or not available in the branch, reports mark them as not checked rather than implying coverage. |
Workflow posture
Supported work is framed as review support.
The same source boundary appears differently depending on the workflow. A novelty packet, an invalidity claim chart, and an FTO scout need different reviewer questions.
Novelty and patentability
Disclosure or claim-set searches against a defined corpus, with distinctions and search gaps called out for review.
Invalidity and obviousness support
Claim limitations mapped to cited candidate evidence, with missing or partial support preserved.
FTO scouting
Product-feature screens by jurisdiction and acts, framed as risk-scouting support rather than clearance.
Landscape and diligence
Technology, portfolio, assignee, and source-coverage assumptions organized for reviewer follow-up.
Report receipts
What a reviewer should see in the packet
Coverage should survive export. The report, evidence packet, and reviewer notes carry the source posture forward so the next person does not have to infer what happened.
- Search scope
- Objective, jurisdictions or collections, date windows, known references, exclusions, and requested outputs.
- Source coverage
- Patent bibliographic, title/abstract, US claims, US descriptions, non-US claims, legal-status, assignment, and NPL status when returned.
- Known-reference check
- Recovered, missing, excluded, outside-corpus, and not-evaluated references.
- Coverage warnings
- What was partial, not requested, outside scope, or source-limited.
- Search checks
- Requested branches, completed branches, skipped branches, and why a branch did not run.
- Review posture
- Selected evidence, open attorney review, assumptions, currency, and export readiness.
Reliance boundary
Useful coverage is explicit about limits.
A search packet should make follow-up work easier to scope. It should not make unresolved source limits look resolved.
- Public demo data is a sample review set, not a live search or currentness statement.
- Live searches start only after account setup, data-boundary acknowledgement, and quote confirmation.
- Coverage is matter-specific. A deeper branch should be requested 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.