Patent research has been transformed by the digitisation of patent databases and the emergence of AI-powered analysis tools. The patent landscape that a researcher navigates in 2024 is fundamentally different from what existed 15 years ago: full-text searchability across tens of millions of patent documents in multiple languages, machine translation of non-English documents, citation network visualisation, and semantic search tools that identify conceptually related inventions regardless of the specific terminology used. These capabilities have expanded what is possible in patent research, but they have also raised the bar for what constitutes adequate research, as the tools available to infringers and competitors are the same ones available to patent applicants and their counsel.
Patent research serves several distinct purposes, each requiring a different methodology. Patentability searches assess whether an invention is new and inventive over the existing prior art, a prerequisite for a valid patent application. Freedom-to-operate analyses determine whether a product or process can be commercialised without infringing third-party patent rights, a prerequisite for a commercially safe product launch or technology licensing decision. Landscape analyses map the patent activity in a technical field, identifying the key players, the technology directions being pursued, and the white spaces where novel developments are occurring. State-of-the-art searches identify the technical context within which an invention sits, informing both claim drafting and the prosecution strategy for a pending application.
A patentability search is conducted before filing a patent application to assess whether the invention meets the requirements of novelty (no prior disclosure anywhere in the world) and inventive step (not obvious to a person skilled in the field at the priority date). The search reviews published patents, patent applications, and non-patent literature (scientific publications, conference papers, technical manuals) in the relevant technical field.
The scope of a patentability search matters as much as its execution. A search confined to a single patent classification code or a single jurisdiction will miss relevant prior art that exists outside those boundaries. Modern patent research uses multiple search strategies in parallel: classification-based searches that retrieve documents by their technical subject matter coding, keyword and concept searches using the specific terminology of the invention, and citation-forward and citation-backward searches that trace the development of related technologies through the citation network. The combination of these strategies significantly increases the probability of surfacing the most relevant prior art.
Conducting a patentability search before filing is not legally required, but it is strongly advisable. A search that identifies the closest prior art allows the claims to be drafted with maximum scope that is defensible over the prior art, rather than drafted broadly and then narrowed during prosecution in response to cited documents that could have been identified in advance.
A freedom-to-operate (FTO) analysis is conducted before commercialising a product or process to determine whether any third-party patents are in force that cover the intended activity. Unlike a patentability search, which reviews all published prior art, an FTO analysis focuses specifically on in-force patents in the jurisdictions where the product will be manufactured, used, or sold.
FTO analysis is technically demanding. It requires identifying the relevant patent landscape, retrieving in-force patents in each target jurisdiction, parsing the claims of those patents to determine their scope, and assessing whether the intended product or process falls within those claims. A product that is not covered by the claims of a patent (rather than the description or abstract) does not infringe; claim analysis is the operative step. FTO analyses in highly active technical fields may require reviewing hundreds of patents across multiple jurisdictions. We use a structured knock-out approach: systematically eliminating patents that clearly do not apply before investing deeper analysis in the patents that warrant it.
Technology landscape analysis maps the patent activity in a defined technical field, identifying which organisations are filing patents, in which sub-fields, at what rate, and with what geographic coverage. This intelligence informs R&D strategy (where are competitors investing and where are there open spaces?), competitor intelligence (what is a specific competitor patenting and where?), licensing strategy (who are the dominant rights holders in a field the company wants to enter?), and M&A due diligence (what IP does a target company hold and how does it compare to the competitive landscape?).
Modern landscape analysis tools generate visualisations of the patent landscape that are interpretable by non-specialists (technology heat maps, filing trend charts, geographic coverage maps, and citation network diagrams) making the strategic implications of the patent data accessible to management and the board, not just to IP professionals.
We access Espacenet (EPO), Google Patents, the USPTO database, WIPO PatentScope, and commercial databases including Derwent Innovation for citation analysis and technology landscape work. For freedom-to-operate analyses in highly active technical fields, we combine multiple databases to ensure comprehensive coverage across all relevant jurisdictions.
AI-powered semantic search identifies relevant prior art that keyword searches miss due to terminology variations across languages and technical fields. AI tools accelerate classification of large result sets, highlight citation patterns indicating core prior art, and detect claim scope variations across document families. These tools improve search thoroughness while compressing research timelines, allowing more comprehensive research within a given budget than was possible with purely manual methods.
A patentability search reviews all published prior art (patents, applications, and non-patent literature) to assess whether an invention is novel and inventive, looking backward at the existing body of knowledge. An FTO analysis reviews currently in-force patents in specific commercial jurisdictions to assess whether a product or process can be commercialised without infringing third-party rights, looking forward at the commercial risk landscape. They serve different purposes, use different search strategies, and produce different outputs.
An FTO analysis produces a risk landscape, not a binary safe/unsafe answer. It identifies patents that potentially cover the intended activity, assesses the strength of those patents and the likelihood of infringement, and advises on risk management options: design-around strategies that modify the product to avoid the claim scope, licensing negotiations with the patent holder, invalidity challenges, or a risk-based decision to proceed given the assessed likelihood and consequences of an infringement claim. We present FTO results in a format that supports commercial decision-making, not just legal analysis.
%402x.svg){kind=icon}
%402x.svg){kind=small}
%402x.svg){kind=icon}
