← All workflows

Patent Prior Art Search and Analysis

Automated patent prior art search and patentability analysis. CaseMark conducts comprehensive multi-database searches, evaluates relevance, and generates prosecution strategies in minutes.

25 minutes with CaseMark

Fast lane

We have it from here.

Choose the fast one-off run here, or jump into the workspace when you want saved history, revisions, and a fuller matter workflow.

Run this once here

Best for a quick one-off job. Add your email, upload the files, and we'll run the workflow and send the result to your inbox.

1. Add your email so we know where to send the result.

2. Upload the files you want analyzed.

3. Run the workflow and we'll take it from there.

Use in Workspace

Best for ongoing matters

Save and reopen matters, keep documents together, refine the output, rerun with changes, and export or share polished work product when you're done.

Open in Workspace

Need more context?

Scroll for the workflow details below if you want to review what this run handles, what documents help, and what the output looks like.

If this is part of a live matter, the workspace is the better fit: you can keep your documents together, revisit the result, and keep working without starting from scratch.

Jump to detailsOpen in Workspace

Start here

Run this workflow now

Best for a fast one-off run. Add your email, upload the files, and we'll deliver the result without sending you into the full app.

Workflow

Patent Prior Art Search and Analysis

Step 1 · Deliver to

Step 3 · Run this workflow

Workflow

Patent Prior Art Search and Analysis

Overview

Traditional prior art searches require 12-20 hours of manual work across multiple patent and non-patent databases, delaying filing decisions and prosecution strategy. Attorneys must manually develop search queries, review hundreds of references, and compile detailed patentability analyses while ensuring no critical prior art is overlooked.

Traditional prior art searches require 12-20 hours of manual work across multiple patent and non-patent databases, delaying filing decisions and prosecution strategy. Attorneys must manually develop search queries, review hundreds of references, and compile detailed patentability analyses while ensuring no critical prior art is overlooked.

CaseMark automates the entire prior art search workflow, simultaneously searching USPTO, EPO, WIPO, Google Patents, Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, and technical databases. It generates comprehensive patentability reports with relevance scoring, claim-by-claim analysis, and actionable prosecution recommendations in under 30 minutes.

Required documents

  • Patent Disclosure Document

    The invention disclosure, draft patent application, or specification describing the novel technical features and claimed elements to be searched

    .pdf, .docx, .doc

Supporting documents

  • Draft Claims

    Preliminary claim language defining the specific scope of protection sought

    .pdf, .docx, .doc

  • Inventor Disclosures

    Additional technical documentation or inventor statements about the invention

    .pdf, .docx, .doc

  • Known Prior Art

    Any prior art already identified by inventors or preliminary searches

    .pdf, .docx

Questions

How comprehensive is the automated patent prior art search?

CaseMark searches all major patent databases (USPTO, EPO, WIPO, Google Patents) and non-patent literature sources (Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, arXiv, and technical journals) using multiple search strategies. The system generates Boolean queries with classification codes, analyzes technical synonyms, and searches across different timeframes to identify both foundational and recent prior art. Each reference is documented with complete citations and relevance scoring.

What is included in the patentability analysis?

The analysis includes claim-by-claim assessment against all discovered prior art, novelty evaluation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, obviousness analysis under § 103 with specific reference combinations, and identification of distinguishing features. CaseMark provides relevance scores for each reference, maps which claim elements are disclosed, and recommends allowable claim scope based on the prior art landscape.

How does this help with patent prosecution strategy?

CaseMark generates specific recommendations for claim amendments to overcome prior art, distinguishing arguments, and additional dependent claims to strengthen the application. The report includes prosecution priorities, potential continuation strategies, and specification amendments if needed. This enables attorneys to develop informed filing and prosecution strategies before submitting to the USPTO.

Can I use this report for USPTO submission?

Yes, the generated report is formatted for professional use and includes all elements required for informed prosecution decisions and potential IDS (Information Disclosure Statement) submission. All citations are verified, references are properly documented, and the analysis is objective and thorough. Attorneys should review and supplement the report as needed for their specific filing requirements.

How accurate is the relevance scoring of prior art references?

CaseMark analyzes each reference against specific claim elements and technical features to assign relevance scores on a 1-10 scale. The system evaluates technical similarity, disclosure of claim elements, and legal significance for both anticipation and obviousness. References are categorized as highly relevant, moderately relevant, or tangentially relevant, with detailed explanations for each score to support attorney decision-making.

Related

Access and Indemnity Agreement (Due Diligence)

Draft Property Access Agreements in Minutes with AI

Access Indemnity Agreement

Draft Access & Indemnity Agreements in Minutes

Ad Fund Agreement

Draft Ad Fund Agreements in Minutes, Not Hours