Patent — Prior-Art + Landscape Intelligence
Portability: Requires
web_fetch(Google Patents, Espacenet, USPTO),WebSearch(adjacent academic art), Node.js withdocxpackage, and optionally Lens.org API key for citation-graph signals. Works in Claude Code CLI natively. In Claude.ai with web tools + Code Execution + BYOK Lens.org, the workflow is supported.
Out of scope: trademark, copyright, trade-secret. These are flagged at intake. Use a different skill or qualified counsel.
Legal disclaimer: This skill produces search signal, not legal advice. Verdicts are technical assessments. Always consult a patent attorney before filing or licensing decisions.
Non-Generic Framing — The Differentiator
This skill is prior-art + landscape intelligence. It refuses to be a bucket. Every invocation commits to one of five sub-use-cases via the grill-me intake before any search runs. The chosen sub-use-case dictates the entire search strategy, ranking heuristics, and DOCX emphasis.
| Sub-use-case | Search strategy | DOCX emphasis |
|---|---|---|
| Novelty search | Narrow + claims-text focused; pre-filing date irrelevant | Closest art + claim-differentiation |
| Freedom-to-operate | Broad + active patents only; jurisdiction-filtered | FTO flags + claim-by-claim risk |
| Competitive landscape | Breadth + filer tally + CPC trends | Filer map + investment hotspots |
| Acquisition diligence | Specific assignee + portfolio scope + assignment chain | Portfolio table + ownership verification |
| Litigation prior-art | Specific target patent + adjacent art before priority date | Knock-out candidates ranked by relevance |
See references/sub_use_case_routing.md for the canon.
Agent Integrity Rules (Research-Pack Convention)
Locked verbatim per PR #657 audit.
- Execution discipline. Sequential search calls only. 1 query/sec rate limit. Confirm response received before next call.
- Source discipline. Cite only patents returned by THIS session's tool calls. Training knowledge labeled
[Not from search — reference information]and excluded from counts. - Three-count tracking. Queries sent / patents received (shown) / patents cited. Surfaced in audit log.
- Retry policy. On failure → wait 3s → retry once → log. After 3 consecutive failures across tools: stop, alert user, explain what's missing.
- Plan-tier detection. Lens.org free tier = 1000 queries/month. Google Patents has no auth but rate-limits per IP. Detect and surface caps.
Phase 1: Grill-Me Intake (6 forcing questions, one at a time)
Q1 (root) — Invention description
Describe the invention in 2–3 sentences. What does it do, and what's new about it?
Why I'm asking: Concept and keyword extraction depends entirely on a precise description. Vague descriptions ("AI for healthcare", "a better widget") will be rejected — push back and ask the user to specify what the invention does and what differentiates it from existing approaches.
Refuse mush. If answer is generic, ask once more: "What does it do that existing systems don't?" Then commit (with caveat in DOCX).
Q2 (depends on Q1) — Sub-use-case commitment
What's the purpose of this search? Pick one:
- Novelty search (am I novel enough to file)
- Freedom-to-operate (will I get sued if I ship)
- Competitive landscape (who else plays here)
- Acquisition diligence (does target really own X)
- Litigation prior-art hunting (kill a specific patent)
Why I'm asking: Each path uses a fundamentally different search strategy. I'll refuse to start without you picking one.
Forcing format. If user says "all of them", push for the primary purpose — secondary purposes can run as follow-up searches.
Q3 (asked only if Q2 ∈ {FTO, landscape, diligence}) — Jurisdictions
Which jurisdictions matter? Pick all that apply: US / EP / CN / JP / KR / PCT / worldwide.
Why I'm asking: FTO only matters where you'll sell. Landscape changes radically by region. Diligence requires checking all jurisdictions where the target operates.
Skip for novelty (priority date is jurisdictionally portable) and litigation (jurisdiction is set by the target patent).
Q4 (depends on Q1) — Known prior art
Have you already seen prior art close to this? Cite a patent number or paper.
Why I'm asking: If you know one piece of art, I can search adjacent to it — much more precise than starting cold. If you don't, that's fine — just confirm.
Anchoring. Accept "none" but ask if the user has seen any related work even informally.
Q5 (depends on Q2) — Risk tolerance
Risk tolerance for this search: strict (one close hit means abandon the path) or signal-gathering (you want the lay of the land regardless)?
Why I'm asking: Strict mode ranks aggressively and surfaces verdict-grade hits; signal mode prioritizes breadth and visualizations.
Asked for novelty and FTO; skipped for pure landscape (always signal-gathering by definition).
Q6 (asked only if Q2 ∈ {novelty, FTO}) — Attorney status
Have you spoken to a patent attorney? This skill produces search signal, not legal advice. Confirm you understand this is for technical assessment only.
Why I'm asking: Novelty and FTO have legal consequences. The skill's verdict is signal-grade; legal positions require qualified counsel.
Triggers the legal-disclaimer footer in the DOCX. Skipped for landscape and diligence (lower legal exposure).
Stop condition: After Q6 (or earlier if dependency skips applied), commit and start Phase 2. Never re-open intake after Phase 2 begins.
Phase 2: Search Strategy Selection
Deterministic from intake answers. Use scripts/sub_use_case_router.py:
python ../scripts/sub_use_case_router.py \
--sub-use-case novelty \
--jurisdictions "" \
--risk strict \
--known-art "US10000000B2"
Returns: query plan (5-8 queries) + ranking heuristic + DOCX emphasis flags.
Phase 3: Multi-Source Search (Sequential)
Source priority
- Google Patents (https://patents.google.com) — workhorse, no auth required, broad coverage
- Espacenet (https://worldwide.espacenet.com) — global coverage, good for non-US art
- USPTO PPS (https://ppubs.uspto.gov) — US deep dive
- Lens.org (https://www.lens.org) — citation graph, BYOK API key required
Per-sub-use-case query patterns
Novelty:
- 3 narrow queries on invention-specific terminology (Google Patents)
- 2 broad concept queries with synonyms (Google Patents + Espacenet)
- 1 CPC-class-restricted query if class identified from initial hits
FTO:
- Jurisdiction-filtered: only active patents (not expired, not abandoned)
- Date filter: priority < today
- Active-claim text extraction for each hit
Competitive landscape:
- Broader queries on the technology space
- CPC class identification → tally top filers in that class
- 10-year filing trend by year per top-5 filer
Acquisition diligence:
- Specific assignee searches (target company + subsidiaries + named inventors)
- Assignment chain check (USPTO assignment recordation)
- Family resolution for deduplication
Litigation prior-art:
- Target patent input required (number)
- Priority date extraction
- Search for art before priority date in same CPC classes
- Adjacent-claim-language search
Sequential discipline
1 q/sec across ALL sources combined. Tracked via scripts/citation_tracker.py with timestamp-enforced gap.
Phase 4: Claim Extraction + Relevance Scoring
For each closest-art hit:
- Pull independent claim 1 (the broadest claim — primary anticipation/obviousness vehicle)
- Pull key dependent claims (claims that add the inventive step)
- Score relevance against invention description (overlap of claim language with Q1 terminology)
Rank by score. Verdict per sub-use-case (NOVEL / POTENTIALLY NOVEL / NOT NOVEL for novelty; CLEA