In the course of our litigation work, Skepsis has developed a unique approach to prior art searching, which consistently yields highly prejudicial prior art.
How our service differs
Most commercial prior art search providers use generalist searchers to keyword search patent databases. In our experience, this is ineffective in all but the simplest of cases.
We have found that using technical experts in the field of the patent to guide a search is far more effective.
Before accepting a search request, we try to identify a suitable expert from the many technical experts and consultancies that we work with. If we can find one that meets our strict requirements, we will commission him or her to work with a qualified patent attorney to identify the most relevant prior art. Our search therefore takes account not just of technical considerations, but also important legal considerations such as claim construction. The involvement of an expert also means that we can perform a directed search of trade publications, conference proceedings, and other ad hoc publications such as ETSI technical submissions and meeting minutes.
In over 90% of the cases we accept, this approach leads to the identification of prior art which could lead to the amendment of the claim as granted. However, acceptance of a case depends on our ability to find the right expert. Currently, we only accept requests in the technical areas of computers and telecoms. Even in these domains, we typically accept only 75% of the search requests that we receive in order to maintain the quality of our reports.
We are so confident in our ability to find the best prior art that we now offer “no find, no fee” arrangements.
If you do not agree with the novelty mapping in our claims-chart, we will waive our fees.