Patent Litigation Research.
Days, not weeks. Audit-ready trail.
Leah ingests asserted patents, prosecution histories, prior art corpora, and litigation history. She produces structured analysis on validity, infringement strength, claim construction, and damages exposure, with a defensible research trail.
Patent litigation runs on research. Most of it is still done by hand.
Manual prior art search consumes weeks
Associates and outside counsel comb USPTO records, foreign patent offices, and non-patent literature one query at a time. The clock runs at billable rates while coverage stays incomplete and the most relevant references go unfound.
Prosecution history analysis is fragmented
File wrappers contain office actions, amendments, examiner interviews, and applicant arguments that bind claim scope. Reviewing this history manually across an asserted patent family takes weeks and key estoppel arguments get missed.
Claim construction work duplicated across litigations
Each new case rebuilds claim charts, intrinsic evidence binders, and Markman positions from scratch. Prior constructions, expert reports, and appellate rulings on the same patent family sit unused in old matter folders.
Validity analysis lacks rigor at scale
Anticipation and obviousness arguments require mapping every claim element to prior art references with motivation-to-combine reasoning. Doing this defensibly across hundreds of claims and dozens of references is impractical without structured tooling.
Damages models built from scratch every time
Reasonable royalty, lost profits, and Georgia-Pacific factor analyses get reconstructed for each case. Comparable license benchmarks, apportionment frameworks, and prior expert testimony rarely flow into the next matter.
Defensible research trail missing
When opposing counsel challenges the basis for a position, the research path is buried in associate emails and shared drives. Reconstructing how a conclusion was reached, with sources, becomes its own discovery exercise.
Asserted patents and full file wrappers, structured on day one
Leah ingests asserted patents, the full patent family, and complete prosecution histories from USPTO and foreign offices. Specifications, claims, drawings, office actions, applicant amendments, examiner interviews, and IDS submissions all become structured, queryable data tied to specific claim elements.
“The first time we ran Leah on an asserted family, she pulled estoppel arguments out of the prosecution history that our outside counsel had not flagged after two weeks of review.”
Chief IP Counsel, Pharmaceutical Company
Five steps from asserted patents to working analysis
Leah operates alongside outside counsel and your IP litigation team. Early-case research moves in-house. Strategy and judgment stay with the lawyers.
Ingest
Asserted patents, full patent families, prosecution histories, accused products, and any prior litigation materials flow into Leah. Foreign counterparts and continuation chains come along automatically.
Map Prior Art
Patent and non-patent literature is searched across jurisdictions and corpora. Every candidate reference is mapped to claim elements with relevance scoring and supporting citations.
Analyze Validity
Anticipation and obviousness positions are built element by element, with motivation-to-combine reasoning. Infringement read is generated against accused products with strength scoring per claim.
Build Damages Model
Reasonable royalty benchmarks, lost profits frameworks, and Georgia-Pacific factor analysis are assembled with comparable licenses and apportionment positions ready for expert refinement.
Document Trail
Every search query, reference reviewed, claim chart, and conclusion is logged with timestamps and citations. The research record is defensible from filing through appeal.
Got Questions? Get Answers.
Leah operates at element-level granularity, the standard for patent analysis. Every prior art reference is mapped to specific claim elements with citations to supporting passages. Validity arguments cite single-reference disclosures or structured obviousness combinations with motivation-to-combine reasoning. Outputs are designed for expert refinement, not as final positions, but the underlying analysis meets the standards required by experienced patent counsel.
USPTO, EPO, JPO, WIPO, KIPO, and CNIPA patent databases are searched in parallel. Non-patent literature includes IEEE, ACM, PubMed, technical standards bodies, and product documentation. Foreign-language references are analyzed in their original language with relevant passages translated for the litigation team. Coverage breadth is configurable per matter based on the technology area and asserted claims.
No. Leah handles the early-case research, prior art mapping, claim charting, and damages model construction that outside counsel typically meters expensive hours doing. Outside counsel refines positions, runs strategy, and litigates the matter. The result is that high-value legal judgment is what gets billed for, not document review and reference indexing.
Every search query, reference reviewed, claim chart, and analytical conclusion is logged with timestamps, sources, and reasoning. If opposing counsel challenges the basis for a position, the research path is reconstructible from the audit log without manual archaeology. This is the same defensibility standard required for IPR petitions and district court validity defenses.
Prosecution histories are structured at ingestion, with applicant amendments, examiner statements, and arguments tied to the specific claim elements they touch. Estoppel triggers (clear and unmistakable surrender of subject matter) are flagged automatically. When evaluating doctrine of equivalents arguments, Leah surfaces the estoppel constraints in the same view as the function-way-result analysis.
Yes. Leah is deployed by IP counsel and litigation teams at pharmaceutical, biotech, software, and manufacturing companies with strict confidentiality requirements. Matter content does not train Leah's underlying models. Customer data is encrypted in transit and at rest. SOC 2 Type II, GDPR, CCPA, HIPAA-ready, and ISO 27001 aligned. Private instance deployment is available for matters requiring strict data isolation, including ethical wall configurations.
