Why these charts are different
Almost no claim chart reads that record.
How a claim was narrowed to overcome an office action, and what the applicant argued to get it allowed, is on the record in the patentee's own words — years before anyone was asserting anything. A chart built only from the issued claim and the accused product leaves the most binding source of claim construction on the table.
That is why it is a defense tool first. Estoppel and disclaimer are arguments the asserting side will never make against its own patent — so they sit unexamined in every contention you are served.
From the essay
“Passing examination and surviving adversarial scrutiny are not the same test, and the gap between them is not narrow.”
Read: Patent Quality Can't Be Measured From MetadataLitigation first, on a prosecution foundation
Two sides of one record
Asserting and defending read the same prosecution record and reach opposite conclusions from it. Four more workflows read every patent you own — those are below.
The foundation it runs on
Charting needs one patent read deeply. These read every patent you own — on the same prosecution intelligence engine.
Who it's for
You were served a chart and have to answer every element of it. Work it element by element — non-infringement, prosecution-history estoppel, contention sufficiency — and lead with the one limitation where the record is strongest.
Build infringement and invalidity charts for litigation and licensing, grounded in structured prosecution history. Every element maps to source evidence, reviewed and controlled by counsel before it's relied on.
Sitting between outside counsel and the business. Read the prosecution record on a patent being asserted at you, and track portfolio health on the estate you own.
An evidence-of-use chart is an infringement chart by another name. Rank the estate by which claims hold up, build the chart on the target's product, and find the estoppel in your own prosecution history before their counsel does.
Run portfolio management and patent quality analysis on structured prosecution data — filing trends, examiner patterns, and prosecution health across your entire estate.
Docket managers, paralegals, and prosecution coordinators. Automated docketing across USPTO, PCT, and EPO with statutory deadlines computed from prosecution events — no manual re-keying.
Why it holds up under scrutiny
Every call is a proposal. Narrative generation only runs on cells an attorney has rated, and editing an element marks the analysis stale rather than leaving a verdict against words that no longer exist.
Every mapping traces to source evidence. Every claim to prosecution events. Every construction to spec passages. Quotes are verified against the document before a finding stands.
“We looked and found nothing” and “we could not look” are different answers. Each run is stamped with which angles ran and which did not, and that stamp is printed into the exported chart.
Searches start from a seed, not a fishing expedition, and every document — found or uploaded — is judged against the claims at issue before an attorney reads it. Nothing is discarded: a rejected item stays visible and recoverable.
File wrappers: USPTO ODP (13M+ files) and EPO OPS (100+ offices, including PCT and the EPO Register). Prior art is a separate, wider net — citation graph, classification, keyword and non-patent literature — reaching pre-1976 art that keyword search cannot.
Exports are work product unless you say otherwise. The internal copy is labelled in the filename; the served variant drops every call, strength and basis.
Send us a patent and the chart you are working from — asserting or answering. We will come back with the prosecution history and the angles it opens, and you can judge the output on your own matter. No charge during the program; we work directly with a small number of teams.