Patent prior-art and landscape intelligence skill — not generic patent help. Commits to one of five sub-use-cases via forcing intake (novelty search / freedom-to-operate / competitive landscape / acquisition diligence / litigation prior-art) before any search runs. Searches Google Patents, Espacenet, USPTO, and optionally Lens.org for citation-graph signals. Output is an editable Word document (.docx) with verdict, ranked closest art (claim-text extracted), CPC-class-aware landscape, family-resolved hits, geographic coverage, FTO flags where applicable, strategy recommendations, and full audit log. Triggers: 'prior art search for [invention]', 'patent search on [topic]', 'freedom to operate analysis', 'FTO for [product]', 'patent landscape for [field]', 'is [invention] novel', 'patents on [topic]', 'competitive patent analysis', 'prior art for litigation', 'patent diligence on [company]'. Produces search signal, not legal advice — always recommends consulting a patent attorney before filing or licensing decis
Patent prior-art and landscape intelligence skill — not generic patent help. Commits to one of five sub-use-cases via forcing intake (novelty search / freedom-to-operate / competitive landscape / acquisition diligence / litigation prior-art) before any search runs. Searches Google Patents, Espacenet, USPTO, and optionally Lens.org for citation-graph signals. Output is an editable Word document (.docx) with verdict, ranked closest art (claim-text extracted), CPC-class-aware landscape, family-resolved hits, geographic coverage, FTO flags where applicable, strategy recommendations, and full audit log. Triggers: 'prior art search for [invention]', 'patent search on [topic]', 'freedom to operate analysis', 'FTO for [product]', 'patent landscape for [field]', 'is [invention] novel', 'patents on [topic]', 'competitive patent analysis', 'prior art for litigation', 'patent diligence on [company]'. Produces search signal, not legal advice — always recommends consulting a patent attorney before filing or licensing decisions. Trademark, copyright, and trade-secret questions are out of scope.
compatibility
opencode
Patent — Prior-Art + Landscape Intelligence
Portability: Requires web_fetch (Google Patents, Espacenet, USPTO), WebSearch (adjacent academic art), Node.js with docx package, and optionally Lens.org API key for citation-graph signals. Works in Claude Code CLI natively. In Claude.ai with web tools + Code Execution + BYOK Lens.org, the workflow is supported.
Out of scope: trademark, copyright, trade-secret. These are flagged at intake. Use a different skill or qualified counsel.
Legal disclaimer: This skill produces search signal, not legal advice. Verdicts are technical assessments.
Always consult a patent attorney before filing or licensing decisions.
Non-Generic Framing — The Differentiator
This skill is prior-art + landscape intelligence. It refuses to be a bucket. Every invocation commits to one of five sub-use-cases via the grill-me intake before any search runs. The chosen sub-use-case dictates the entire search strategy, ranking heuristics, and DOCX emphasis.
Sub-use-case
Search strategy
DOCX emphasis
Novelty search
Narrow + claims-text focused; pre-filing date irrelevant
Closest art + claim-differentiation
Freedom-to-operate
Broad + active patents only; jurisdiction-filtered
FTO flags + claim-by-claim risk
Competitive landscape
Breadth + filer tally + CPC trends
Filer map + investment hotspots
Acquisition diligence
Specific assignee + portfolio scope + assignment chain
Portfolio table + ownership verification
Litigation prior-art
Specific target patent + adjacent art before priority date
Execution discipline. Sequential search calls only. 1 query/sec rate limit. Confirm response received before next call.
Source discipline. Cite only patents returned by THIS session's tool calls. Training knowledge labeled [Not from search — reference information] and excluded from counts.
Three-count tracking. Queries sent / patents received (shown) / patents cited. Surfaced in audit log.
Retry policy. On failure → wait 3s → retry once → log. After 3 consecutive failures across tools: stop, alert user, explain what's missing.
Plan-tier detection. Lens.org free tier = 1000 queries/month. Google Patents has no auth but rate-limits per IP. Detect and surface caps.
Phase 1: Grill-Me Intake (6 forcing questions, one at a time)
Q1 (root) — Invention description
Describe the invention in 2–3 sentences. What does it do, and what's new about it?
Why I'm asking: Concept and keyword extraction depends entirely on a precise description. Vague descriptions ("AI for healthcare", "a better widget") will be rejected — push back and ask the user to specify what the invention does and what differentiates it from existing approaches.
Refuse mush. If answer is generic, ask once more: "What does it do that existing systems don't?" Then commit (with caveat in DOCX).
Q2 (depends on Q1) — Sub-use-case commitment
What's the purpose of this search? Pick one:
Novelty search (am I novel enough to file)
Freedom-to-operate (will I get sued if I ship)
Competitive landscape (who else plays here)
Acquisition diligence (does target really own X)
Litigation prior-art hunting (kill a specific patent)
Why I'm asking: Each path uses a fundamentally different search strategy. I'll refuse to start without you picking one.
Forcing format. If user says "all of them", push for the primary purpose — secondary purposes can run as follow-up searches.
Q3 (asked only if Q2 ∈ {FTO, landscape, diligence}) — Jurisdictions
Which jurisdictions matter? Pick all that apply: US / EP / CN / JP / KR / PCT / worldwide.
Why I'm asking: FTO only matters where you'll sell. Landscape changes radically by region. Diligence requires checking all jurisdictions where the target operates.
Skip for novelty (priority date is jurisdictionally portable) and litigation (jurisdiction is set by the target patent).
Q4 (depends on Q1) — Known prior art
Have you already seen prior art close to this? Cite a patent number or paper.
Why I'm asking: If you know one piece of art, I can search adjacent to it — much more precise than starting cold. If you don't, that's fine — just confirm.
Anchoring. Accept "none" but ask if the user has seen any related work even informally.
Q5 (depends on Q2) — Risk tolerance
Risk tolerance for this search: strict (one close hit means abandon the path) or signal-gathering (you want the lay of the land regardless)?
Why I'm asking: Strict mode ranks aggressively and surfaces verdict-grade hits; signal mode prioritizes breadth and visualizations.
Asked for novelty and FTO; skipped for pure landscape (always signal-gathering by definition).
Q6 (asked only if Q2 ∈ {novelty, FTO}) — Attorney status
Have you spoken to a patent attorney? This skill produces search signal, not legal advice. Confirm you understand this is for technical assessment only.
Why I'm asking: Novelty and FTO have legal consequences. The skill's verdict is signal-grade; legal positions require qualified counsel.
Triggers the legal-disclaimer footer in the DOCX. Skipped for landscape and diligence (lower legal exposure).
Stop condition: After Q6 (or earlier if dependency skips applied), commit and start Phase 2. Never re-open intake after Phase 2 begins.
Phase 2: Search Strategy Selection
Deterministic from intake answers. Use scripts/sub_use_case_router.py:
Pull key dependent claims (claims that add the inventive step)
Score relevance against invention description (overlap of claim language with Q1 terminology)
Rank by score. Verdict per sub-use-case (NOVEL / POTENTIALLY NOVEL / NOT NOVEL for novelty; CLEAR / FLAGGED / HIGH RISK per jurisdiction for FTO).
Phase 5: Citation Graph + Family Resolution
Citation graph (Lens.org BYOK)
If user provides Lens.org API key:
Foundational-patent identification (cited-by count > threshold, typically 50+)
Recent high-cite signals (citations in last 24 months as proxy for current activity)
Forward citations from target patent (litigation prior-art) or from closest art (novelty)
If no Lens.org key: skip; note in audit log; recommend manual citation review on Google Patents.
Family resolution
Same invention often filed in multiple jurisdictions (US + EP + JP + CN). Group by family ID or priority number to avoid double-counting. Use scripts/family_resolver.py:
python ../scripts/family_resolver.py --hits-file hits.json
# Returns: deduplicated family list + family-member jurisdictions
CPC/IPC Classification Awareness
Critical: keyword search alone misses adjacent art. After initial search, extract the CPC/IPC classes from top 5 hits and run one class-restricted query. This consistently surfaces art that keyword search misses.
Closest Prior Art — 5-10 patents in ranked order. Per hit: hyperlinked title + assignee + filing/priority dates + independent claim 1 text (italicized) + relevance score + relevance rationale (1-2 sentences)
Patent Landscape — Top filers table (top 10 by count) + 10-year filing trend description + CPC class distribution table. Only for landscape and diligence; abbreviated otherwise.
