IIPRD develops infringement claim charts with a consulting-driven approach that emphasizes analytical depth, evidentiary discipline, and strategic clarity. Our work is built on the belief that well‑structured technical analysis should not only demonstrate infringement, but also support broader legal and commercial decision-making. Each chart is constructed to provide a coherent narrative that aligns claim interpretation, product behavior, and evidentiary support, allowing counsel and business stakeholders to evaluate risk, opportunity, and next steps without ambiguity. This perspective ensures that our charts are not merely technical documents, but decision-enabling tools that integrate seamlessly into enforcement, licensing, due diligence, and negotiation workflows.

In addition, our methodology incorporates advanced AI-driven analytical tools that assist in identifying potential infringement pathways with greater speed and precision. These tools allow us to process large volumes of technical material, source code, product documentation, and system behavior logs in a fraction of the time traditionally required. More importantly, the insights generated through these models are reviewed and validated by our legal and technical teams, ensuring that automated pattern recognition is translated into legally meaningful analysis. This combination of human expertise and machine-assisted evaluation provides a level of completeness and consistency expected from a top-tier consulting practice, particularly in matters where timelines are compressed or evidence sets are complex.

A chart begins with the claim itself. We examine each asserted claim in detail, studying not only the plain language but also the prosecution record, relevant prior art discussions, known industry terminology, and the technical domain in which the claim operates. This ensures that every limitation is understood the way a court or expert would likely interpret it. Each limitation is then stated clearly, without unnecessary paraphrasing, and placed into a structure that becomes the backbone of the mapping.

From there, our work turns to the accused product. We treat this stage as an investigatory exercise rather than a document compilation task. Depending on the matter, we may analyze teardown photographs, device architecture, firmware behavior, software modules, source code excerpts, configuration files, system logs, user documentation, regulatory submissions, SDK references, or independent test results. If the product must be tested to understand real‑world behavior, we replicate the conditions with as much precision as possible. The goal at this stage is to understand the product as it actually functions, not simply as it is marketed.

Every claim limitation is then matched to technical evidence. The resulting chart does more than repeat documentation. It explains how the product’s implementation satisfies the limitation, points directly to the evidence, and walks the reader through the reasoning. This narrative approach is essential for litigation and licensing contexts, where clarity often carries as much weight as technical correctness. We avoid speculation, avoid stretching interpretations, and avoid filler. Each statement is either anchored in evidence or left out.

The supporting material is organized into exhibits that are easy to navigate. Each reference is labeled, cited consistently, and provided in a format suitable for expert declarations or litigation filings. When a single piece of evidence supports several limitations, it is cross‑referenced without redundancy. When an argument depends on alternative interpretations of a claim term, we prepare parallel explanations that address those possibilities without compromising the structure of the chart.

IIPRD’s charts are frequently used at multiple stages of the enforcement lifecycle. In preliminary assessments, they help determine whether a case has meaningful strength before resources are committed. In pre‑suit phases, they refine the theory of infringement and highlight areas where additional discovery may be needed. During litigation, they assist experts in preparing reports that are consistent with the underlying technical facts. In licensing or settlement discussions, they allow negotiations to proceed on the basis of clarity rather than conjecture.

Our team blends patent attorneys with engineers and specialists who have worked directly with the kinds of systems we analyze. That combination reduces misinterpretation and speeds up the process of identifying the true technical behavior of a product. Whether dealing with software architectures, communication protocols, semiconductor components, medical devices, or mechanical systems, we approach each matter with the same objective: create a chart that accurately reflects how the technology operates and how it intersects with the asserted claims.

What clients value most is the stability, consistency, and analytical maturity of the work product. A chart that is methodically developed can withstand scrutiny from technical experts, opposing counsel, and courts without requiring reformulation. Its reasoning remains stable even as a matter progresses from internal assessment to formal enforcement or negotiations. This reliability is particularly important in consulting contexts, where strategy decisions depend on how confidently stakeholders can rely on the underlying technical mapping.

IIPRD’s objective is to deliver infringement claim charts that function as rigorous analytical instruments rather than superficial summaries. Each chart is prepared with the same deliberation that informs our broader consulting practice: clarity in reasoning, precision in interpretation, and an unwavering focus on factual grounding. The result is work product that supports the full lifecycle of enforcement and licensing efforts while enabling clients to act with confidence, predictability, and strategic alignment.

Case Study 1: Software Feature Mapping for Pre-Suit Assessment

A global technology company approached IIPRD to evaluate whether a competitor’s enterprise software platform implemented a patented data synchronization mechanism. The client needed clarity before committing resources to a large enforcement program. Our team reviewed publicly accessible documentation, conducted controlled testing, and analyzed system logs to understand the functional flow. The resulting chart demonstrated clear alignment between the asserted claim limitations and the product’s implementation, supported by repeatable evidence. This allowed the client’s litigation team to establish an informed enforcement strategy while simultaneously initiating licensing discussions on a position of technical certainty.

Case Study 2: Hardware Module Infringement in a Telecommunications Device

A telecommunications equipment developer sought support in mapping a competitor’s baseband module to a set of claims covering signal processing and channel estimation techniques. Because documentation was limited, our team performed a detailed teardown, evaluated firmware behavior, and reconstructed the signal path through empirical testing. The final chart linked each functional block to claim requirements with annotated hardware photographs and firmware traces. This evidence package helped the client present a clear infringement theory during licensing negotiations, ultimately leading to a commercial resolution without requiring full-scale litigation.