www.ppubs.uspto.patents

                                                                   

Full URL: https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/

Strategic Imperative

The USPTO Public Search portal is our primary tool for investigating the U.S. patent landscape. A U.S. patent grants its owner a legal monopoly on an invention, and a company’s portfolio of patents is a direct reflection of its R&D investment, its strategic direction, and its capacity for market domination. This intelligence is fundamental to our most advanced technology-related strategies.

This platform is mission-critical for:

  • Identifying Monetizable Assets: The U.S. is the largest and most active market for patent litigation and monetization. 1 This portal allows us to identify U.S. companies with strong patent portfolios that may be undervalued or under-enforced, presenting opportunities for us to facilitate litigation funding agreements or asset sales. 2
  • Competitor Analysis: A company’s U.S. patent filings are a clear, forward-looking indicator of its technological ambitions and product pipeline. 3 This is a critical input for our “Benchmarking” and “Porter” analysis frameworks. 44
  • Evidence for U.S. Antitrust Cases: U.S. antitrust law scrutinizes the use of patents for anticompetitive ends. We can use this portal to gather evidence of “patent thickets” or sham litigation to support a complaint to the FTC or DOJ, directly enabling our “Challenge Discrpower” doctrine. 55555
  • Informing “MATOIPO Analysis”: For any merger or acquisition involving U.S. technology companies, a thorough audit of their patent portfolios on this platform is an essential part of due diligence. 6666 The value of these transactions is often tied directly to the strength and validity of their patents. 7

Part I: The Search Platform’s Rules & Functionality

The USPTO Public Search is a highly sophisticated tool with a steep learning curve. It requires precise syntax for effective use.

  • Search Interface: The platform offers a powerful command-line style “Advanced Search” that allows for complex, multi-field queries.
  • Key Search Fields: The search uses specific two-letter field codes. The most important for our purposes are:
    • AN: Applicant Name.
    • AANM: Assignee Name (the current owner of the patent). This is often more important than the applicant.
    • TTL: Title of the patent.
    • ABST: The Abstract.
    • ICL or CCL: International (IPC) or U.S. (CPC) Patent Classification codes.
    • ISD: Issue Date.
  • Search Syntax and Operators:
    • Boolean Operators: Standard operators AND, OR, NOT are used.
    • Phrase Search: Use double quotation marks (" ") for exact phrases (e.g., "self-driving vehicle").
    • Field-Specific Search: Queries must be structured using the field codes. Example: AANM/("Acme Corporation" AND "Acme Innovations") will search for two variations of the assignee name.
    • Date Searching: Dates must be entered in MM/DD/YYYY format. Example: ISD/1/1/2020->2/28/2020.
    • Wildcards: Use $ or * as a wildcard for a variable number of characters (e.g., inven$) and ? for a single character.

Part II: The COCOO Strategic Search Model for the USPTO

This protocol provides a systematic workflow for any investigation involving U.S. technology or patents.

Phase 1: Adversary & Technology Landscape Audit

  • Step 1.1: Adversary IP Dossier: For any U.S.-based target company, conduct a comprehensive search using their name and any known subsidiaries in the AANM (Assignee Name) field. This creates a complete dossier of their U.S. patent assets.
  • Step 1.2: Thematic Technology Search: Identify the relevant U.S. Patent Classification (CPC) codes for a technology area central to a case. Search using this classification code (e.g., CCL/"706/$") to generate a list of all companies with patents in that field, identifying the U.S. market leaders and innovators.

Phase 2: The “Litigation Risk & Opportunity” Protocol

  • Step 2.1: Analyze Patent Claims: For a target’s key patents, carefully review the “Claims” section. The specific wording of the claims defines the legal scope of the monopoly. Vague or overly broad claims may be vulnerable to a legal challenge.
  • Step 2.2: Identify “Sham Litigation” Indicators: Look for companies that have a pattern of suing smaller competitors for patent infringement and then settling quickly. Cross-reference this with a search of the U.S. federal court database (PACER). This pattern can be evidence of using litigation as an anticompetitive weapon rather than for legitimate enforcement.
  • Step 2.3: Check for “Broken Chain of Title”: For a high-value patent, trace its assignment history within the USPTO database. Are there any gaps or irregularities in the chain of ownership? A flawed assignment can render the patent unenforceable, creating a significant leverage point.

Phase 3: Intelligence Synthesis & Strategic Action

  • Step 3.1: Originate U.S.-Based USPs: Based on the audit, identify companies with strong but under-enforced U.S. patents. This is a direct trigger for a USP. We can approach the patent holder with a proposal to facilitate a non-recourse funding deal with a U.S. litigation funder to monetize the assets. 8
  • Step 3.2: Build a U.S. Antitrust Complaint: The evidence of a “patent thicket” or a pattern of sham litigation can form the basis of a complaint to the FTC or the DOJ’s Antitrust Division, arguing the company is abusing the patent system to harm competition. 9

Part III: Application to COCOO Doctrines

This model is designed to provide the U.S.-specific technological intelligence needed to support our most sophisticated strategies.

Mind Map Doctrine Application of the USPTO Portal Model
USP (Unsolicited Proposal) The platform is a primary engine for originating USPs in the U.S. market by identifying high-value patent assets that are ripe for monetization through litigation finance. 10
Benchmarking / Competitor Analysis The Adversary IP Dossier (Step 1.1) and Thematic Technology Search (Step 1.2) provide a data-driven benchmark of a competitor’s technological capabilities and innovation strategy in the crucial U.S. market. 1111
Challenge Discrpower The model provides the evidence to challenge the actions of patent-holding adversaries in regulatory forums, arguing that their use of IP rights constitutes an anticompetitive practice that harms the market. 12121212
Noisefilter A company’s marketing about its “revolutionary U.S. technology” is noise. Its portfolio of issued patents on the USPTO database, with their specific legal claims, is the verifiable signal of its actual innovation and legally protected territory. 1313
MATOIPO Analysis An audit on this platform is a non-negotiable part of due diligence for any MATOIPO event involving U.S. companies. The strength, validity, and ownership of the U.S. patents are often the most valuable assets in the transaction. 14141414

Leave a Reply