You ran a ClaimHit search. You have a strong match, Samsung, or a company in your industry, surfaced by multiple models and confirmed against documented evidence. Now what?
Most patent owners reach this point and either move too fast (sending a licensing letter based on scan results alone) or freeze entirely waiting for certainty that never fully arrives. Neither approach serves you well. This guide walks through the realistic path from preliminary scan results to a licensing conversation: what each step involves, what it costs, and where AI research fits into the workflow.
One observation worth sharing upfront: the step where most enforcement programmes stall is between gathering documentation and engaging an attorney, not because the evidence is weak, but because organising materials before the first attorney meeting feels like admin. It is not. Arriving prepared cuts your first meeting from an expensive orientation session into an actual analysis session.
Step 1: Understand what you actually have
A result from ClaimHit is a research finding, not a legal determination. Before taking any action, be clear about what the scan tells you and what it leaves open.
The scan tells you that multiple independent AI models found specific evidence, product datasheets, FCC filings, standards specifications, suggesting this product implements technology claimed in your patent. That is a meaningful signal worth investigating formally.
What the scan cannot tell you: whether the product literally infringes your specific claims as properly construed, whether your patent would survive a validity challenge, whether prosecution history limits your claim scope, or whether the accused product predates your priority date. Those are legal questions requiring an attorney. Think of the scan as your shortlist, not your case.
Step 2: Gather preliminary documentation
Before engaging an attorney, collect the documentation already available to you. Product datasheets, spec sheets, or technical documentation cited in your ClaimHit results. The product page and any marketing materials describing relevant features. FCC filings, CE declarations, or regulatory submissions the company has filed publicly. Developer documentation or API references if available.
Then generate an AI Hit Chart for your top one or two results. A Hit Chart maps each claim element to specific evidence from the accused product, it is the first document your attorney will want to see, and having it organised before your first meeting shifts that conversation from research to legal analysis.
The difference in billable hours between an attorney reviewing a well-prepared Hit Chart versus conducting the initial research themselves is significant. Attorney time spent on basic market research is expensive research.
An hour of attorney time reviewing a well-organised Hit Chart with cited evidence is worth significantly more than an hour spent on initial market research. The ClaimHit scan and Hit Chart shift attorney time from research to analysis.
Step 3: Engage a patent attorney
Find a patent attorney who practises in your relevant technology area, ideally with a technical background in the field. For software or electronics patents, a generalist IP attorney will be less effective than someone who understands how the technology actually works.
At the first meeting, bring your patent, the ClaimHit results, the Hit Chart, and the documentation you gathered. Your attorney will perform formal claim construction, review the prosecution history for file wrapper estoppel issues, assess validity risks, and give you a written opinion on whether you have a case worth pursuing.
Budget for this opinion. A preliminary written opinion on a single target from a specialist firm typically runs $3,000 to $8,000 depending on technology complexity and number of claims. That investment buys you an honest answer on whether you have a case, which is worth knowing either way.
Step 4: The licensing conversation
When your attorney confirms a reasonable infringement case, the typical first move is a licensing conversation, not litigation. Most patent disputes resolve through licensing. A properly drafted licensing letter proposes terms and invites negotiation, it is not a cease-and-desist demand, which can backfire by triggering a declaratory judgment action from a well-resourced defendant.
Your Hit Chart and any expert analysis reports function as supporting documentation in this conversation. They demonstrate specific, documented due diligence rather than speculative assertion, which changes how the other side approaches the negotiation.
For SEPs specifically, you are obligated to offer FRAND terms to all similarly situated implementers. How you structure those terms is itself a strategic decision worth discussing with counsel.
Step 5: Keep monitoring
Once enforcement begins, the market keeps moving. New product versions launch. Companies that were not infringing when you first scanned may infringe as their products evolve. New entrants appear in your technology space while your licensing campaign is running.
ClaimHit's optional monitoring re-runs your search on a schedule you set and alerts you when new matches appear. For active enforcement programmes, monitoring is how you avoid pursuing a shrinking list of targets while a growing cohort goes unnoticed.
There is also a damages consideration: timestamped monitoring records documenting when an infringing product entered the market can be relevant to willfulness and damages calculations in some jurisdictions.