How to Search Patents

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

Why should I search patents before filing?

Searching patents before filing a patent application serves several important purposes: (1) Patentability assessment: if a prior patent or published application discloses the same invention, your application will be rejected for anticipation (§ 102) or obviousness (§ 103). Finding this early saves $10,000–$25,000 in prosecution costs. (2) Claim strategy: knowing what prior art exists lets you draft claims that are as broad as possible while still being distinguishable. Without prior art knowledge, you might draft claims that are either too narrow (unnecessarily weak) or invalid (anticipated or obvious over art you didn't find). (3) Understanding the competitive landscape: prior art search reveals who else is active in your space, what they've patented, and where there are white spaces where broad claims may be available. (4) Freedom to operate: patents you find in a search may cover your product — you may need to design around them, take a license, or challenge their validity before launch. (5) Prosecution efficiency: the USPTO examiner will search the same databases. If you know the prior art in advance, you can draft claims and arguments that preemptively distinguish the most likely rejections, often resulting in faster allowance. You don't have to search before filing — there is no legal requirement to conduct a prior art search. But the consequences of filing without searching often include rejections that could have been anticipated, unnecessarily narrow claims, and in some cases, wasted prosecution costs on inventions that weren't patentable.

What is the difference between a patentability search and a freedom-to-operate search?

These are two distinct types of patent searches with different purposes, coverage, and outputs: Patentability search (also called a prior art search or novelty search): Purpose: determine whether an invention is likely patentable — i.e., novel (35 U.S.C. § 102) and non-obvious (§ 103). Coverage: focuses on prior art that predates the applicant's priority date, including patents, published applications, academic papers, conference proceedings, products, and any other public disclosure. What it produces: a list of the closest prior art found, with an analysis of whether the invention appears to be novel and non-obvious over that art, and suggested claim language to distinguish the art. When to use: before spending money on a patent application; before making the invest/don't-invest decision. Freedom-to-operate (FTO) search: Purpose: determine whether a product or process you plan to commercialize infringes any currently in-force patents owned by third parties. Coverage: focuses only on currently enforceable patents (not expired art; not published applications that haven't issued) in the markets where you will sell the product. What it produces: an analysis of which in-force patents might have claims that could be infringed by your product, along with a legal opinion on whether your specific product's implementation infringes those claims. When to use: before product launch; when acquiring a company; when investors require IP diligence. Key differences: patentability asks 'can I get a patent?' FTO asks 'can I sell this product without being sued?' A prior art search for patentability might find an expired patent that destroys novelty (relevant to patentability) but is irrelevant to FTO (expired patents can't be infringed). Conversely, an FTO search looks at enforceable patents even if filed after your priority date (which would not be prior art against you, but could still be infringed by your product).

What are CPC classification codes and how do I use them in patent searches?

The Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system is a hierarchical classification scheme jointly developed by the USPTO and the European Patent Office (EPO) to categorize patents by technical subject matter. The CPC replaced the older USPC (US Patent Classification) system and harmonized with the International Patent Classification (IPC). CPC structure: the CPC has 9 top-level sections (A–H + Y for cross-sectional technologies), each divided into classes, subclasses, main groups, and subgroups. Example: H04W — Wireless Communications Networks; H04W 76/14 — Connection setup; H04W 88/06 — Mobile station software. How to find the right CPC code: (1) Look at the 'Current US Classification' or 'CPC' section of a relevant patent you already found in keyword search — note those codes; (2) Browse the CPC hierarchy at USPTO's CPC scheme pages or Espacenet's classification system; (3) Use Google Patents' CPC browser — type a technology keyword and see which CPC subclasses are suggested. How to search by CPC: in Google Patents, use the 'Classification' filter and enter a CPC code (e.g., 'H04W 76/14'); Espacenet allows direct CPC and IPC code searching; USPTO PatFT/AppFT supports Boolean keyword + classification combination searches. Why CPC searching is powerful: two patents about the same technology may use completely different words. A patent from 1990 about 'wireless data transmission' and a 2020 patent about '5G NR uplink' may both be classified under the same CPC subgroup — a classification search finds both, while a keyword search might miss the 1990 patent.

Does non-patent literature (NPL) count as prior art?

Yes — non-patent literature (NPL) is prior art under the same rules as patents and patent applications. Under AIA § 102(a)(1), any disclosure (patent, publication, public use, offer for sale, or otherwise) that was publicly available before the effective filing date is prior art. This includes: academic journal articles, conference papers and presentations, textbooks, product manuals and data sheets, website content (with evidence of the date it was publicly available), government reports, standards documents, theses and dissertations, product catalogs, press releases, news articles, and video demonstrations of the technology. Where to search for NPL: (1) Google Scholar — academic papers across all disciplines; searches both open-access and paywalled literature; (2) PubMed — comprehensive for biomedical and life sciences; (3) IEEE Xplore — electrical engineering, computer science, electronics, communications; (4) arXiv — physics, math, computer science, engineering preprints (often before formal publication); (5) ACM Digital Library — computing and information technology; (6) Lens.org — integrates patents and scholarly literature in one search; (7) Scopus and Web of Science (paid) — comprehensive scientific literature. The USPTO examiner will search NPL: examiners have access to paid databases and are required to search 'all relevant prior art' including NPL. Failure to find relevant NPL is one of the most common reasons examiners miss prior art that defendants later find in litigation — NPL found in litigation that was not submitted to the USPTO is devastating to patent enforceability because it suggests the examiner never had the best prior art.

What is the duty to disclose prior art to the USPTO?

All persons substantially involved in the prosecution of a US patent application — inventors, registered practitioners (attorneys and agents), and anyone who is substantially involved in the prosecution — have a duty of candor and good faith to the USPTO. This includes a specific duty to disclose all information known to be material to patentability under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56. The duty of disclosure is satisfied by filing Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) that list all known material prior art — patents, published applications, and non-patent literature. Material information is information that a reasonable examiner would consider important in deciding whether to allow the claims. What should be disclosed: all patents and applications cited against you in related prosecution (foreign or US); all search results you conduct; all references known to any inventor or attorney involved in the prosecution that might be relevant; competitor patents in related technology; any prior art referenced in a litigation or IPR involving related patents. What the duty does NOT require: you are not required to conduct a search before filing; you are only required to disclose information you actually know. However, if you have a professional freedom-to-operate opinion that reveals relevant art, that art should be disclosed. Consequences of failure to disclose: if an applicant or attorney withholds known material prior art with specific deceptive intent, the patent may be held unenforceable for inequitable conduct (Therasense, 2011). This is a catastrophic outcome — the entire patent becomes unenforceable. Best practice: file comprehensive IDS submissions early and often during prosecution; err on the side of disclosure (the cost of disclosing a reference is zero; the cost of withholding a material reference can be the entire patent).