Back to Contist

Patent Quality

Patent Quality, Measured from
the Prosecution Record.

Metadata proxies — claim count, family size, forward citations, prosecution speed — are decoupled from what quality is supposed to predict. Contist scores every matter from the prosecution history itself: rejection distribution, argued-vs-amended patterns, scope-delta magnitudes, and appeal history. Reasoning attached to every score.

Get in touch

From the essay

Portfolio tools score patent quality from bibliographic proxies — claim count, family size, forward citations, prosecution speed — that are decoupled from what quality is supposed to predict: whether the claims survive PTAB and district-court scrutiny.

Read the full essay

Core capabilities

Every Score Traces Back to Prosecution Facts.

Quality analysis you can defend. Every number is grounded in specific prosecution events — an attorney can see which facts moved the score, and why.

Per-Feature Quality Score

Every matter carries a per-feature quality score computed from the prosecution record: rejection-type distribution (§102 / §103 / §112 / §101), argued-around vs. amended-around per §-section, scope-delta magnitudes across the amendment chain, limitations added and removed, terminal-disclaimer status, and interview / appeal history. Reasoning is attached to every score — an attorney can see which prosecution facts moved the number.

Per-feature reasoningRejection distributionArgued vs. amendedScope magnitudes

Rejection Distribution

Per-matter and per-portfolio breakdowns across §102 (novelty), §103 (obviousness), §112 (written description, enablement, definiteness), and §101 (subject-matter). Trend lines show whether the estate is accumulating specific weaknesses.

§102 / §103 / §112 / §101Portfolio trend

Argued vs. Amended

Per §-section: what did counsel argue around versus concede via amendment? The ratio matters for estoppel exposure. Scope claimed in arguments is preserved; scope conceded through amendments is not.

Per §-sectionEstoppel signal

Scope Trajectory (First vs. Latest)

A canonical claim-scope summary computed after every sync: as-filed versus current claims, per-claim narrowed / broadened / added / deleted counts, limitations added or removed, and a net direction of NARROWING, BROADENING, MIXED, or STABLE.

CanonicalFirst → latestPer-matter

Interview & Appeal History

Every examiner interview and appeal event is captured as a first-class signal — outcomes, argument summaries, and whether they led to allowance or further prosecution. A common blind spot for metadata-driven quality tools.

InterviewsAppeal outcomes

Reasoning Attached to Every Score

Every score has a "why." Click through and see the underlying prosecution events — the specific office action, the specific amendment, the specific argument. Defensible in front of a partner, a board, or opposing counsel.

ExplainableAuditableAttorney-defensible

See the prosecution history behind every score

Quality analysis is powered by the same structured prosecution intelligence.

Open Prosecution Intelligence