Skip to main content

Frequently Asked Questions

How does Evalify relate to a manual FTO / clearance analysis?​

Evalify automates the mechanical work of a clearance analysis — decomposition, searching, claim charting, legal-status assessment, and risk scoring — and delivers it as a structured work-product in minutes. It is best used as a rigorous first pass and a force-multiplier: it does the breadth-and-charting groundwork so your billable time goes to review, judgment, and strategy rather than search and chart assembly. It augments the analysis; it does not replace the practitioner.

Can I rely on the output as an opinion of counsel?​

No. Evalify produces an automated FTO assessment and analytical work-product — not an opinion of counsel, and not legal advice. It is designed to inform and accelerate your analysis and to give you an evidence-linked, defensible basis for it. The professional opinion, and the professional judgment behind it, remain yours.

For each aspect, Evalify runs a semantic and classification-based search across a comprehensive, licensed global patent corpus, then screens candidates for relevance so the analysis concentrates on references that plausibly read on the subject matter. As with any search, completeness depends on how precisely the subject matter is described and scoped — which is why the aspect-review step (and your curation of it) materially affects recall. See Analysis Methodology.

How are the claim charts constructed?​

Evalify retrieves the independent claims of the relevant references and builds a limitation-by-limitation claim chart for each aspect — an all-elements mapping of each claim limitation to the corresponding feature of the subject matter, identifying the deciding limitation. The chart shows the basis for each read so you can verify and extend it.

Does it analyze the doctrine of equivalents?​

Evalify performs an element-by-element (literal-style) mapping of claim limitations to the subject matter. It does not purport to render a doctrine-of-equivalents analysis — equivalents, prosecution-history estoppel, and claim construction remain matters for your professional judgment. The claim charts are structured to give you a clear basis from which to conduct that analysis.

Which jurisdictions does it cover?​

Evalify works from a global patent corpus and lets you set the territorial scope of each analysis to the jurisdictions relevant to the matter. Scope is selected when you configure the analysis and drives both the search and the assessment.

What patent data does it use?​

Analyses are grounded in a comprehensive, licensed global patent database — search, bibliographic data, claims, patent families, and legal status — rather than the AI model's own knowledge. Grounding the analysis in authoritative data is what makes the output defensible rather than speculative.

Each relevant reference is assessed for current legal status (in force, lapsed, expired, abandoned, or pending), with patent-family context and estimated term. Risk is weighted by enforceability — an expired or abandoned reference is treated very differently from an active one — and pending applications are surfaced as a distinct future-risk category rather than current blockers.

How is client confidentiality handled?​

Confidentiality is treated as fundamental, precisely because the platform handles unpublished inventions and sensitive matters. Your content is not used to train AI models. The AI runs on enterprise infrastructure selected specifically for its data-governance and no-retention guarantees. Handling of any given matter within your practice remains subject to your own professional obligations.

How current is the analysis, and can I keep it current?​

An analysis is a point-in-time assessment. Because the landscape shifts as applications publish and grant, you can place a matter under monitoring — the analysis is re-run on a schedule and you're alerted to material changes, such as newly relevant references or status changes.

How long does an analysis take?​

Typically a few minutes. It runs server-side, so you don't need to keep the session open — you're notified when the report is ready.

Which tier should I use?​

Match the tier to the matter: lighter tiers for early triage or budget-constrained screens, and Counsel Grade — the fullest search, charting, and analysis — for clearance work where the output needs to withstand scrutiny. See Running an Analysis.

What input produces the best analysis?​

A technically specific description of the subject matter — a specification, invention disclosure, or detailed technical write-up that sets out how the product actually works. Precision in the input drives precision in the decomposition, search, and charting.