Matrixx0070 When to use
Use this when a team is about to launch a product or feature and needs a fast read on patent-infringement exposure before shipping. It surfaces blocking claims early, while design choices are still cheap to change.
Not for: deciding whether your own invention is patentable (use ipl-invention-intake); responding to an accusation aimed at you (use ipl-infringement-triage); or drafting a demand letter (use ipl-cease-desist).
Method
- Define the product. List the concrete features, components, and processes you will ship. Vague descriptions produce useless searches.
- Find relevant patents. Search by CPC/IPC classification, keywords, and competitor assignees. Capture number, assignee, and status.
- Read the independent claims. These are broadest and define scope. Ignore abstracts and marketing — only claims matter.
- Chart element-by-element. Map each claim element to your product. Under the all-elements rule, literal infringement needs every element present; one missing element defeats it (watch the doctrine of equivalents for near-misses).
- Check status and geography. Confirm the patent is in force, unexpired, and granted where you will sell.
- Rate risk (low / medium / high) per patent and overall.
- Decision point: for a medium/high hit, choose design-around (change a claimed element) versus license (element is core) — weigh engineering cost against royalty.
ATTORNEY-ESCALATION GATE: Any live blocking claim you cannot cleanly design around, any willful-infringement exposure, or any need for a formal FTO or non-infringement opinion stops here and routes to a licensed patent attorney or agent. You assist; you do not give a legal opinion. This is not legal advice.
Example
A wearable estimates hydration from skin impedance. A search finds an in-force US patent whose independent claim recites electrodes + impedance measurement + an ML hydration model. Charting shows all elements read on the design. Risk: high. Recommendation: design-around the ML-model element or license; escalate for a non-infringement opinion before launch.
Pitfalls
- Reading abstracts, not claims. Only the claims define the monopoly; the abstract misleads.
- Charting dependent claims first. Independent claims are broadest — start there.
- Ignoring expiry and geography. An expired or foreign-only patent may not block you.
- Treating one missing element as clearance. The doctrine of equivalents can still reach substitutes.
Output format
FTO TRIAGE — <product/feature> | markets: <countries>
Features assessed: <list>
Patents reviewed:
| Patent | Assignee | Status/expiry | Indep. claim charted | Every element met? | Risk |
Overall risk: LOW | MEDIUM | HIGH
Decision: proceed | design-around (<element>) | license | opinion-of-counsel
Escalation: <live blocking claim? formal opinion needed? -> patent counsel>
Reference
Patentability bars double as the invalidity arguments you can raise against a blocking patent:
- §101 — eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas, laws of nature, natural phenomena excluded (Alice/Mayo).
- §102 — novelty. Prior-art anticipation; AIA first-inventor-to-file; the 1-year on-sale and public-use grace/bar.
- §103 — non-obviousness. Graham factors.
- §112 — written description, enablement, definiteness.
Claims define scope; independent claims are broadest. Literal infringement requires every element (all-elements rule); the doctrine of equivalents reaches insubstantial substitutions. This is not legal advice.