ClaimHit / Expert Review
The engine shows its working. An attorney finishes it.
A ClaimHit chart maps the claim element by element and tells you plainly which limitations it could not close from public evidence. That is the honest end of what software can do on its own. Expert Review is the next step: an attorney with subject-matter expertise closes those limitations against source documents, verifies every citation, and signs the chart off as a report you can put in front of a licensee.
What you get, and what it costs
The first step is yours to use as it stands. The second exists for the moment you are going to send it to somebody.
Search and chart
The target list, and an element-by-element Hit Chart with the evidence attached — every source a link you can open on the manufacturer’s own domain. Minutes, not days. Enough to decide internally whether a target is worth pursuing. The rate for a first patent is shown before you pay anything.
Expert Review
An attorney with subject-matter expertise works the chart: each open limitation against datasheets, manuals, standards and technical documentation; every citation checked against its source; the mapping corrected where the engine read a product wrongly; the result signed. Delivered in 36 hours. Flat for a review of a search’s target list, per chart for chart reviews, and shown before you pay anything.
Four things, on every review
Closes the open limitations
The chart names them — “limitations 05 and 07 are open”. The attorney goes after exactly those, in the documentation a search engine cannot reach: product manuals, datasheets, commissioning documents, the specification a standard actually cites.
Verifies every citation
Each quoted passage is checked against the document it came from, and each document against the product it is supposed to describe — the right model, the right generation, the right market.
Corrects the technical reading
Where the engine mapped a claim term onto the wrong mechanism, somebody who knows this kind of product says so and remaps it. This is the part no amount of retrieval fixes, and it is why the reviewer has subject-matter expertise in your technology rather than being a generalist.
States what cannot be closed
If a limitation cannot be established from available sources, the report says so and why — what would settle it, and where that document would have to come from. That is a finding, not a failure: knowing a gap is real, and why, is what stops a licensing letter going out on an assumption.
Research, prepared by an attorney
The reviewer is an attorney with subject-matter expertise in the technology the patent is about — somebody who can read a manufacturer’s documentation the way an engineer reads it and knows what a claim element has to be matched against. What comes back is a verified, element-by-element mapping of the claim onto a real product, with its evidence, signed.
It is research to support your decision: not a formal infringement opinion, not a freedom-to-operate clearance, and not legal advice to you. Ordering it does not create an attorney-client relationship, and whether to issue a reasoned opinion is a separate engagement you would take up with counsel. We say all of this on the report itself, in the same words.
What arrives
A PDF report: the chart as reviewed, element by element, with each citation verified and the reviewer’s note on every limitation that changed. The underlying chart stays in your account, updated, so an export after the review carries the reviewed mapping.
How it runs
Order it from a finished search or chart — the app asks when a chart is generated — or from a portfolio scan, where every completed chart can go in one order. Payment upfront; the clock starts when it clears. 36 hours.
See who is using your patent.
The pilot is one patent: the full product search and one Hit Chart, with a 30-day money-back guarantee. No subscription, no card on file after that.
One patent, the full search and one Hit Chart. 30-day money-back guarantee.