Invalidity Contention Claim Charts

We break the claim into its individual elements and address every one of them. Each element is set against the matching disclosure from the reference, with nothing left unmapped.

Every mapping carries the exact text from the reference, with the column, line, paragraph or figure number cited. Your team can verify any entry against the source document without reading it again in full.

We confirm the publication date of each reference and record it on the first page of the chart. Where a publication date cannot be established, we state the filing date instead and flag it for you.

The searcher adds comments wherever a mapping is strong, partial or open to argument. You can see which references carry the challenge and which ones need support.

Where a single reference does not meet every element, we propose combinations and explain the basis for each one. Novelty is addressed first, then obviousness.

You decide the scope. We chart independent claims only, or independent and dependent claims together, and price each chart accordingly.

We study the specification and the prosecution history before any mapping begins, including final and non-final office action responses. This shows how the claim terms were narrowed and what the applicant gave up during prosecution.

We split each asserted claim into separately numbered elements, following the construction the matter requires. The chart keeps that numbering throughout, so it can be read alongside your contentions.

We review every prior art reference in full, not only the passages a keyword search returned. Relevant disclosure often sits in the description or the figures rather than in the claims.

The US and Europe treat the line between novelty and inventive step differently. We adapt the mapping and the comments to the jurisdiction the matter is being argued in.

Every chart is checked by a second engineer before it reaches you. The check covers the citations, the dates and any element where the mapping is weak.