AI for the defense

Stop paying patent trolls.
Start fighting back with AI.

For decades, non-practicing entities (NPEs — “patent trolls”) have run the same play: a few hundred dollars to file a complaint, millions to defend one. Most defendants settle even when the patent is junk, because fighting costs more than the “license.” That’s lawfare — winning by making the legal process the punishment.

When those same patents face real scrutiny at the USPTO, most don’t survive. We’re using AI to make that scrutiny cheap — and crowdsourcing to make it comprehensive. Together they generate invalidity dossiers and defensive disclosures, automatically, for every patent in the public litigation databases.

Your move

Add a patent to the database.

Drop one US patent number — we’ll verify it on Google Patents and generate the full invalidity dossier. The patent gets a public page; the next person who searches for it doesn’t have to start from scratch.

One US patent number per submission. Commas, spaces, and the country prefix are stripped automatically (so US 10,123,456, 10123456, and 10,123,456 B2 all work).

Patents tracked
1,394
Litigation cases
2,474
Plaintiffs
824
Defendants
1,608

By the numbers

The math behind the lawfare.

$402

Filing fee for a patent infringement complaint in U.S. District Court

USDC fee schedule

$3M+

Median total cost of defending a patent suit through trial

AIPLA Economic Survey of U.S. Patent Litigation

~80%

Of USPTO PTAB Inter Partes Reviews that get instituted invalidate at least one challenged claim

USPTO PTAB Trial Statistics, FY2023

The asymmetry is the entire business model. Filing a suit costs the troll almost nothing; making the suit go away costs the defendant a fortune. So defendants pay licensing fees on patents that wouldn’t hold up if seriously challenged — because seriously challenging them costs more than the license. The patents are bad on the merits and yet they collect money. That is the “patent troll” problem.

The PTAB statistic is the tell: when bad patents are actually challenged, they overwhelmingly lose. The trolls’ leverage isn’t their patents — it’s the cost of proving the patents are bad. In 2025 that leverage only widened, as the USPTO throttled the cheap path to challenging bad patents: patent litigation in 2025, by the numbers.

If you got a demand letter

Paste the letter. Get the analysis.

Drop the full text of any patent demand or cease-and-desist letter into the analyzer. We extract the asserted patents, identify the asserter, look up their litigation history, flag validity vulnerabilities, and draft a sample response letter your attorney can review.

No signup, no payment, no indexing. Each analysis lives at a private URL only you can reach.

What you get back

  1. 1.Structured extraction. Patents asserted, plaintiff, sender, demand, deadline, threats — auto-verified against Google Patents.
  2. 2.Detailed analysis. Who’s asserting, what the patents claim, infringement weaknesses, validity vulnerabilities, settlement leverage, red flags.
  3. 3.Sample response letter. Firm-but-courteous draft your attorney can adapt, plus notes for them to review.

Informational only. Always review with a licensed patent attorney before responding.

The strategy

How we flip it.

AI makes the analysis cheap. An LLM with web-search grounding and access to a patent’s full text can produce, in minutes, the kind of dossier that previously took a defense lawyer weeks and a six-figure retainer.

Crowdsourcing makes it comprehensive. Anyone can drop a patent number into the form below and trigger an analysis; anyone can upload a CSV of cases. Every patent someone cares about gets covered, instead of only the few that defendants can afford to fight individually.

Strategy 1 · Invalidate

Defendants get a head-start on §102 / §103

For every tracked patent, we generate prior art (§102), an obviousness analysis (§103), and a litigation history. A defendant who lands at our page already has the skeleton of an invalidity defense — the references to cite, the combinations to argue, the prior cases to study. The first $300k of a defense, free.

Strategy 2 · Block future trolls

Defensive disclosures preempt the next bad patent

For high-risk patents, we generate a Defensive Disclosure document: derivative variations across material substitution, scale extremes, cross-domain application, emerging-tech integration, and failure modes — with Mermaid diagrams and enabling descriptions. Once these pages are indexed, they're prior art against anyone trying to patent the same idea later.

Test yourself

How well do you know the patent troll scam?

10 questions, about 3 minutes. Patents, NPEs, post-grant review, prior art, obviousness, and the cost asymmetry that makes the troll business model work. Instant scoring with explanations and links to deeper reading.

Take the quiz →

Case study

Lumen View v. FindTheBest — when a defendant fought back, the troll paid.

In 2013, Lumen View Technology — a non-practicing entity with no products, no employees, and a portfolio built around one patent — sued FindTheBest.com over US 8,069,073, a vague method for “bilateral and multilateral decision-making” — essentially: matchmaking, but on a computer. Lumen View had run the same playbook against more than 20 other defendants and most paid quick five-figure settlements to make the suit go away.

FindTheBest didn’t. Its CEO publicly pledged $1 million to fight rather than settle, and the company counter-sued under RICO. On November 22, 2013, Judge Denise Cote (S.D.N.Y.) invalidated the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101 — an early application of the abstract-idea doctrine that the Supreme Court would codify seven months later in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (June 2014).

Then the bill came due for the troll. On June 3, 2014, Judge Cote granted FindTheBest’s motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 — one of the earliest fee-shifts under the relaxed exceptional-case standard the Supreme Court had handed down five weeks earlier in Octane Fitness. In October 2014 she set the lodestar at $148,592 and doubled it as a deterrent against predatory NPE conduct, for roughly $297,000 in fees plus costs. The Federal Circuit affirmed the exceptional-case finding in 2016 but trimmed the doubling on appeal.

Same patent. Same plaintiff playbook. Different outcome — because the defendant had the resources and the will to fight. Most don’t.That’s the asymmetry we’re trying to fix. The full invalidity dossier on US 8,069,073 — the patent that lost — is below. A defendant landing on this site today gets the references, the claim-by-claim § 102/§ 103 analysis, and the litigation history for free, instead of paying $300k to build the same defense from scratch.

Sources: Lumen View v. FindTheBest, 984 F. Supp. 2d 189 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (§ 101 invalidation); EFF, “FindTheBest Wins Again” (Oct 2014, fee-shift & doubling); Lumen View v. FindTheBest, 811 F.3d 479 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (CAFC affirmance & remand on enhancement).

The dossier

What an actual analysis looks like.

Excerpts from the live dossier on US patent US8307116B2. Each section was generated by the LLM with web search grounding and the patent’s full text.

See full dossier →

Patent summary

Read →

What the patent actually claims, in plain language. Title, assignee, inventors, filing dates, and a claim-by-claim plain-text overview — grounded in the patent's full text from Google Patents, not a hallucinated guess.

Here's a concise summary of US patent US8307116B2, "Scalable bus-based on-chip interconnection networks": Patent US8307116B2 Summary Title: Scalable bus-based on-chip interconnection networks Inventors: Stephen W. Keckler and Boris Grot Filing Date: 2009-06-19 Issue Date: 2012-11-06 Current Assignee: EMPIRE TECHNOLOGY…

Litigation summary

Read →

On-file cases involving the patent, plus a free-form narrative of plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, key rulings, and outcomes. Linked to specific case detail pages from our database.

Known litigation involving US patent US8307116B2: The patent document itself notes a US case filed in the Texas Western District Court, case number 1:26-cv-00989. This is also consistent with the previously generated summary. As of April 26, 2026, a direct search for US8307116B2 on publicly accessible litigation…

PTAB challenges

Read →

AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.

Proceedings overview There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US8307116B2 as of the most recent data ingest and current web searches. Strategic summary As of June 11, 2026, all claims of US8307116B2 (claims 1-15) remain untested by AIA trial proceedings. There is no estoppel landscape to consider from PTAB…

Assignment history

Read →

The chain of ownership recorded at the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who filed each recording, since shell LLCs swap names but the lawyer running them usually doesn't. Inventors, original assignee, every transfer, and an explicit NPE-pattern verdict: shell-entity LLCs, known asserters, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation transfers, bankruptcy fire-sales.

Inventors Stephen W. Keckler Boris Grot At the time of filing, both inventors were affiliated with the University of Texas System. There is no information to suggest an unusual pattern of inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing. Original assignee The entity named on the issued patent is…

Prior art

Read →

References (patents, publications, products) that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable under § 102. For each: citation, date, and which claims it potentially anticipates.

toolcode print(googlesearch.search(queries=["US8307116B2 USPTO patent citation list", "US8307116B2 most relevant prior art", "US8307116B2 prior art US20070180183A1", "US8307116B2 prior art US20050262270A1", "US8307116B2 prior art US20070014316A1", "US8307116B2 prior art US7499997B2", "US8307116B2 prior art…

Obviousness

Read →

Prior-art combinations that render the claims obvious under § 103, including the motivation a person of ordinary skill would have had to combine them. The argument the defense lawyer would build.

Obviousness Analysis of US8307116B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 This analysis assesses the obviousness of US patent US8307116B2, "Scalable bus-based on-chip interconnection networks," under 35 U.S.C. § 103, using the explicit prior art disclosed within the patent itself. The analysis considers the perspective of a Person…

Extensions

Read →

Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and projected expiration date — what's still enforceable, and for how long.

To provide the most accurate information regarding US8307116B2's patent term adjustments (PTA), extensions (PTE), application types, family members, and expiration date, I need to access the official USPTO Patent Center or Public Search tools. The current search results indicate that the USPTO does not calculate…

Derivative works

Read →

A defensive disclosure: 5–10 derivative variations per claim across material substitution, scale, cross-domain application, emerging tech, and failure-mode designs — with Mermaid diagrams. Once published, this is prior art against any troll trying to patent the same idea later.

Defensive Disclosure: Scalable Bus-Based On-Chip Interconnection Networks (US8307116B2) This defensive disclosure outlines derivative variations of the scalable bus-based on-chip interconnection networks described in US8307116B2. The aim is to preemptively establish prior art for potential incremental improvements…

Sources

  1. AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey — patent infringement litigation cost statistics (median costs through trial vary with amount in controversy; routinely cited in the millions). AIPLA Economic Survey
  2. USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Trial Statistics — published quarterly. The majority of instituted IPRs result in at least one claim being found unpatentable; many find all instituted claims unpatentable. uspto.gov/patents/ptab/statistics
  3. Unified Patents and RPX annual reports — track NPE share of patent litigation, settlement rates, and case counts. Unified Patents Insights
  4. U.S. District Court fee schedule — civil filing fee. uscourts.gov fee schedule