Frequently Asked Questions

What do you do?

Our main service is invalidity contentions. We automate invalidity contention generation, including claim charts and cover pleading. We are a “white-glove” service – you provide the references that you want to chart against a set of patents, and we provide service-ready contentions.

What exactly do you give us in terms of work product?

Service-ready invalidity contentions, including cover pleading and claim charts. The claim charts include figures and reliable column / line citations (e.g., for U.S. patent references).

How do I know the work product is in the right format and state for immediate use in litigation?

We developed our system in close collaboration with leading patent litigators at top firms, for direct and immediate use in their cases. Patlexa is currently in use producing invalidity contentions for cases involving some of the world’s largest technology companies.

How do you do this?

We use a proprietary workflow that combines custom-developed code with cutting-edge AI. Human operators who are experts in AI, software automation, and invalidity contentions are involved in each stage of the workflow.

How do I see what kind of work product you’ll produce?

Give us a sample reference and asserted patent, and we’ll be happy to send you a sample chart.

What is the benefit of your service?

Invalidity contentions are one of the costliest stages of patent litigation, and typically come early in the case schedule, when many cases have not yet settled. Our service saves large amounts of attorney time by automating that process. From an in-house perspective, this brings major cost savings in attorney fees. From an outside counsel perspective, you can provide better value for your clients, while devoting your time and efforts to the substantive aspects of the case that matter – not the tedium involved in the manual, repetitive work of putting together dozens of invalidity charts and dozens (or hundreds) of pages of cover pleading.

Is AI reliable enough by itself to produce service-ready work?

Our proprietary AI-assisted workflow, with human review, produces high-quality invalidity reads. For many purposes, that will be sufficient. Of course, in high-stakes litigation attorneys may want to review and edit work product before service. In that case, think of us as an expert consultant with in-depth technical understanding providing rapid, high-quality work product, that you (as the partner or senior associate) can review and edit. Your time can be focused on the substance that matters: identifying and ensuring that optimal disclosures are cited for your trial-candidate references.

If we WOULD LIKE attorney claim mappings incorporated, what Is the best way to do that?

Our recommendation is to follow the standard attorney workflow of putting together a “heat map” of prior art disclosures. This typically takes the form of a table, where (for example) the rows are claim limitations, and the columns are prior art references. The cells identify key disclosures, such as col/line and figure citations, with a color-code to indicate disclosure strength. Simply give us that table and we will incorporate each of your citations into the claim charts.

Is the work entirely automated?

From your perspective, yes (subject to additional input that you may want to provide such as heat maps). On our end, the workflow is partially automated using custom software and AI technology, with human quality checks and verification at key points. That is why we consider ourselves to be a “white-glove” service and more than just a software automation tool.

Is AI hallucination an issue?

No. Our custom workflow ensures that excerpts are copied and pasted directly from the prior art reference itself. Because of that there is no risk of hallucinated content being introduced into the charts.

Is the cover pleading really automated and complete, including obviousness and section 112?

Yes. We have default templates for the major patent litigation jurisdictions, but if you would like to tailor the cover pleading to a different template, just let us know. We also expect, though it is not required, that you will want to provide input on which references to use as primary references, the scope of obviousness combinations, which limitations to address for section 112, etc. These custom inputs are all fully supported by our proprietary workflow.

Does your service have a web interface to interact with?

No. As a “white-glove” service, you will receive direct support from a human throughout the process. We do not want to add to your workload by asking you to learn how to operate a new tool or software interface.

If I want a certain feature tailored or added, is that possible?

Yes – we are always looking to improve our service. Just let us know what you have in mind, and we’ll be happy to discuss.

How did Patlexa come into being?

Invalidity contentions have long been an intensive, manual, time-consuming process, filled with tedium and duplication of work. That has historically frustrated many of the practitioners we work with, who would prefer to spend their time (and clients’ money) on substantive analysis and work that actually matters for the case. We saw a gap in the market for a white-glove invalidity contentions service, and have worked day-and-night to develop what we believe is the market-leading solution.

Do you have any future plans?

We intend to extend our service to provide more tools to assist in common patent litigation workflows.

What is the pricing for your invalidity contention service?

Our pricing is set at a level that it should be a “no-brainer” to use relative to the amount of money it saves in attorney time. Contact us for a quote!