Patent Infringement Analysis.
Element by element, claim by claim.
Leah maps product specifications to claim language, runs element-by-element comparison, surfaces design-around opportunities, and quantifies infringement risk. Defensive freedom-to-operate and offensive infringement, on the same engine.
The targeted question is simple. The work to answer it is not.
Freedom-to-operate analysis takes weeks per product
A single FTO opinion can take a small team of patent counsel four to six weeks of full-time work. By the time the analysis lands, engineering has moved on, and the answer is stale before it reaches the product roadmap.
Element-by-element comparison is manually drafted
Every claim has to be broken into elements, then mapped against product specifications by hand. Counsel maintain claim charts in spreadsheets and Word, with no consistent structure across products or jurisdictions.
Design-around opportunities are missed
When a claim element reads on the product, the answer is usually a redesign. But identifying which element is easiest to engineer around requires patent and product knowledge in the same head, which rarely happens.
Engineering specs are hard to map to claim language
Patents are written in legal taxonomy. Product specs are written in engineering taxonomy. Bridging the two takes hours of translation per claim, and inconsistencies creep in across reviewers.
Cross-jurisdiction patent families are fragmented
The same invention can have ten variations across the US, EU, China, and Japan, each with subtly different claim scope. Tracking which family member matters in which market is left to memory and outside counsel handoffs.
Defensive analysis cost balloons
Outside counsel rates for FTO opinions and infringement charts run six figures per product. For a portfolio of dozens of SKUs across multiple markets, the legal spend becomes a tax on innovation.
From engineering spec to claim language, translated
Leah ingests product specifications, design documents, and engineering drawings, then maps each technical feature to the language used in patent claims. The translation between product taxonomy and patent taxonomy happens automatically, with every mapping linked back to its source for review.
“We used to spend two weeks turning engineering specs into claim charts. Leah delivers the first pass overnight, and our counsel time goes into the judgment calls that actually matter.”
Chief IP Counsel, Medical Devices Manufacturer
Five steps from product spec to defensible risk view
Leah works alongside your patent counsel and outside firms. The judgment stays with your team. The drafting, mapping, and aggregation happen automatically.
Ingest Product Spec
Engineering documents, BOMs, design files, source code references, and marketing materials are pulled in and structured into a queryable product feature inventory.
Map Claim Elements
Target patents, including full claim sets and dependency chains, are parsed and aligned with the product feature inventory through automated taxonomy translation.
Compare
Each independent and dependent claim is charted element by element against the product, with evidence cited and confidence scored for every comparison.
Identify Design-Arounds
Where elements read on the product, Leah ranks design-around opportunities by engineering feasibility and how many claims each option resolves.
Quantify Risk
Findings roll up into a portfolio risk view across products, patents, and jurisdictions, with patent families linked and evidence one click away.
Got Questions? Get Answers.
Patent litigation research is the wider workflow around an active or anticipated dispute, covering prior art, validity, damages, and procedural history. Infringement analysis is the targeted question of whether a specific product reads on a specific claim, or whether a company has freedom to operate in a market. Leah's infringement engine focuses on element-by-element comparison and design-around surfacing, which is the comparative reasoning at the heart of both offensive and defensive infringement work.
Yes. The same element-by-element engine runs in both directions. Defensively, it analyzes whether your product infringes a third-party patent, supporting freedom-to-operate opinions and risk quantification. Offensively, it analyzes whether competitor products infringe your own patents, supporting enforcement decisions and licensing strategy. The output format, claim charts with cited evidence, is identical.
Patent families are linked at ingestion. When a US patent is analyzed, Leah automatically surfaces the corresponding EP, CN, JP, and other national family members, along with the claim-level differences across each jurisdiction. The risk view shows where your product is exposed in each market separately, since claim scope often diverges between national filings even within the same family.
Yes. The output is structured as a defensible claim chart with element-level evidence citations, confidence scores on borderline elements, and links back to the underlying product specs and patent text. Counsel review the analysis, mark up borderline calls, and sign off on the final chart. The tool removes the manual drafting work, not the legal judgment.
For every claim element that reads on a product, Leah ranks how dependent the patent is on that element and how feasible it is to engineer the product so the element no longer applies. Each design-around option is tied to a specific product subsystem with a coarse engineering effort estimate. When multiple patents read on the same product, Leah finds the design-arounds that resolve the most claims with the least change.
The claim charts include element-level citations to product specs and patent text, confidence scores on arguable elements, and a complete audit trail of which model versions and source documents produced each finding. Outside counsel typically use the output as the working draft, applying their judgment on borderline elements before the chart is filed or relied on in opinion form. The traceability is engineered for litigation use.
