Invalidity searches are claim-driven and evidence-oriented.

The analysis centres on identifying patent and non-patent disclosures, published before the relevant priority date, that disclose the same technical features as the asserted claims, either individually or in permissible combinations, and may therefore anticipate or render the claims obvious under applicable legal standards.

In many engagements, invalidity searches are conducted under tight timelines or evolving legal strategies. Accordingly, the scope and depth of the search are calibrated based on the intended use, whether for early risk assessment, preparation for opposition, or active litigation support, ensuring focus on the most defensible and strategically relevant prior art.

Sources reviewed may include earlier patent publications, scientific and technical literature, conference materials, recognised technical standards, product documentation, manuals, and other publicly available disclosures.

Depending on the scope and objective of the engagement, IIPRD’s invalidity search support typically includes:

• targeted identification of novelty-destroying or inventive-step-challenging prior art;
• searches across multiple jurisdictions and public technical sources;
• claim-wise or element-wise mapping of prior art against asserted claims;
• identification of the most relevant references for opposition, revocation, or defence;
• documentation of search logic and source coverage; and
• preparation of an invalidity assessment highlighting potential claim weaknesses and strategic considerations.

Where appropriate, an initial focused search may be conducted to determine whether meaningful invalidity arguments are likely to exist before undertaking a comprehensive analysis.

Invalidity searches are carried out through a structured process designed to maximise relevance and evidentiary value:

• Claim Deconstruction: Asserted claims are analysed to identify essential technical elements, claim dependencies, and priority constraints.
• Designing and Development of Search Strategy: Search strategies combine keyword logic, patent classification systems, citation trails, semantic tools, and jurisdiction-specific databases to ensure broad yet targeted coverage.
• Identification of Evidence: Searches are executed across patent and non-patent sources to locate disclosures most relevant to the claim elements.
• Expert Review: Results are manually reviewed by technically qualified analysts to identify disclosures of legal significance and evidentiary strength.
• Structured Reporting: Findings are organised into claim-wise mappings and analytical observations suitable for legal evaluation and strategic decision-making.

AI-assisted semantic analysis and indexing tools are used to expand the search beyond literal terminology and capture conceptually similar disclosures that may be expressed differently across jurisdictions, time periods, or technical communities. This is particularly relevant in invalidity contexts, where older publications, standards documentation, or engineering disclosures may predate modern claim language.

AI tools are used to enhance recall and efficiency; however, all identified material is independently reviewed and evaluated by experienced patent professionals to ensure contextual legal relevance and evidentiary reliability.

Invalidity search outputs are intended to support assessment of patent validity and related legal or commercial strategy. They do not constitute an infringement analysis or freedom-to-operate opinion, which require separate, product-specific and claim-based evaluation.

A multinational electronics company engaged IIPRD after receiving a patent assertion from a competitor. IIPRD conducted a targeted invalidity search focused on the asserted claims, reviewing earlier patent filings, technical publications, and recognised industry standards predating the priority date. Claim-wise analysis identified multiple disclosures addressing the core technical elements. The findings enabled the client to reassess litigation risk, strengthen its negotiating position, and evaluate the feasibility of pursuing a validity challenge.