When a patent or design dispute arises, finding the right prior art can make a significant difference. But effective litigation research is rarely as simple as searching a patent database.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Relevant information may be hidden in an unexpected classification, described using terminology that has changed over time, or contained in material that was never published as a patent at all. In some cases, potentially important disclosures may pre-date digital databases altogether.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For litigation research, knowing where and how to look<\/strong> can be just as important as knowing what to search for.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A conventional patent search will often begin with keywords, classifications, citations and known competitors or inventors. These techniques remain important in litigation research, but the investigation may need to go considerably further.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The relevant technology may have developed over decades. Companies may have changed names, products may have disappeared from the market and terminology that seems obvious today may not have been used when the technology first emerged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This means researchers need to think beyond the initial search parameters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At PatWorld, our analysts develop search strategies around the technical subject matter, relevant dates and objectives of each project. As potentially useful information emerges, the investigation can be refined and expanded to follow new lines of enquiry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Patent databases differ in their coverage, indexing and search functionality. For litigation research, relying on a single source can therefore limit the investigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n PatWorld uses multiple leading commercial patent and design databases, allowing our analysts to cross-check results and take advantage of different indexing methodologies and search capabilities. This helps maximise coverage when investigating potentially relevant prior art.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But patent databases are only part of the picture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some potentially valuable disclosures may never have appeared in a patent publication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Depending on the subject matter and objectives of the investigation, relevant material might instead be found in scientific or technical literature, industry publications, conference proceedings, product catalogues, historical documentation or archived websites.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Older material presents an additional challenge. Some publications pre-date widespread digital indexing, while others have never been digitised at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is why litigation research can sometimes require a return to physical sources. PatWorld\u2019s research can extend to library archives, printed publications and, where appropriate, physical searches of paper collections at the British Library and other specialist archives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Good litigation research is not simply about running a predetermined series of searches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A reference may reveal an earlier company name. A product brochure may introduce terminology that leads to an entirely different group of publications. An inventor may have worked for another organisation before the relevant filing date. One discovery can change the direction of the investigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n An investigator-led approach allows researchers to follow those connections rather than remaining restricted to the original search terms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It requires persistence, technical understanding and a willingness to explore less obvious sources.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWhy Litigation Research Can Be Different<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why One Database May Not Be Enough<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Looking Beyond Patent Literature<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Following the Evidence<\/h2>\n\n\n\n