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.

Got a demand letter? Analyze itBrowse 3,515 tracked litigation casesSee an example dossier

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
2,332
Litigation cases
3,515
Plaintiffs
1,156
Defendants
2,146

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.

Analyze a letter

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 9661049. 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.

Summary — U.S. Patent No. 9,661,049 (US9661049B2) Note on sources: I searched for this patent on USPTO/Google Patents and for CAFC 2026 docket activity. The Google Patents record for US9661049B2 was confirmed (title, dates, assignee history, abstract, spec). No CAFC 2026 docket entries for this patent number were…

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.

I found a lead: 1:26-cv-01373, Adeia Tech Inc. v. DISH Network Corp. (Colorado District Court), which matches the Unified Patents litigation link shown on the Google Patents record for US9661049B2. Let me verify the details. The core case is confirmed. Now let me check whether other cases (the DirecTV DJ action and…

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 zero AIA trial proceedings (IPR/PGR/CBM) on file for US Patent No. 9,661,049: the structured USPTO Open Data Portal block reports no proceedings, and independent web searches for "US9661049" / "9,661,049" against PTAB decision databases, Unified Patents, and CourtListener returned no…

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.

The initial searches surfaced the patent text but not the USPTO assignment reel/frame records. Let me dig into the specific recorded assignments and the assignee entities. Good context emerging — Adeia (public licensing company) is now asserting patents against DIRECTV. Let me trace the specific assignment records and…

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.

I'll research the citations and prior art for US Patent 9,661,049. Let me start by searching for the patent's citation records. The initial searches returned pages that cite 9661049, not the references cited by 9661049. Let me search for the examiner-cited references listed on the patent's front page. The Google…

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 — U.S. Patent No. 9,661,049 (US9661049B2) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 A. Scope, sources, and honesty flags (read first) Source for prior art. The full patent text provided to me does not itself contain a "Prior Art / References Cited" section. I recovered the face-of-the-patent citation list from…

Extensions

Read →

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

I'll research the USPTO records for patent 9661049, focusing on PTA/PTE, continuation/divisional applications, family members, and projected expiration. The first search returned only general PTA information. Let me search more specifically for this patent's term data and family. The generic searches aren't surfacing…

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 — PRIOR ART PUBLICATION Docket/File ref: DD-9661049-2026-04-26 Publication date: April 26, 2026 (per task instruction; note the environment header elsewhere reads 2026-09-05 — the earlier date is adopted for this document as instructed) Author classification: Technical disclosure for…

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