Agent-almanac assess-ip-landscape

install

source · Clone the upstream repo

git clone https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac

Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/

T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/i18n/caveman-ultra/skills/assess-ip-landscape" ~/.claude/skills/pjt222-agent-almanac-assess-ip-landscape-1fb25e && rm -rf "$T"

manifest: i18n/caveman-ultra/skills/assess-ip-landscape/SKILL.md

source content

Assess IP Landscape

Map IP landscape for tech domain — ID patent clusters, white spaces, key players, FTO risks. Produces strategic assessment → R&D direction, licensing, IP filing strategy.

Use When

Before R&D in new tech area (what's claimed?)
Market entry vs incumbents w/ strong portfolios
Investment due diligence (IP asset assessment)
Inform patent filing strategy (where, what to claim)
FTO risk for new product/feature
Monitor competitor IP for strategic positioning

In

Required: Tech domain/product area
Required: Geographic scope (US, EU, global)
Optional: Specific competitors
Optional: Own patent portfolio (gap analysis + FTO)
Optional: Time horizon (5 years, 10 years, all)
Optional: Classification codes (IPC, CPC)

Do

Step 1: Define Search Scope

Establish analysis boundaries.

Tech domain precisely:
- Core (e.g., "transformer-based language models" not "AI")
- Adjacent (e.g., "attention mechanisms, tokenization, inference optimization")
- Exclude (e.g., "computer vision transformers" if focusing on NLP)
Relevant classification codes:
- IPC (International Patent Classification) — broad, worldwide
- CPC (Cooperative Patent Classification) — more specific, US/EU std
- Search WIPO's IPC publication or USPTO's CPC browser
Geographic scope:
- US (USPTO), EU (EPO), WIPO (PCT), specific national offices
- Most analyses start US + EU + PCT → broad coverage
Time window:
- Recent: 3-5 years (current competitive)
- Full history: 10-20 years (mature areas)
- Watch expired patents opening design space
Doc scope as Landscape Charter

→ Clear bounded scope specific enough actionable + broad enough captures competitive. Classification codes ID'd for systematic search.

If err: Too broad (thousands of results) → narrow via technical specificity or focus application area. Too narrow (few) → broaden adjacent tech. Right scope typically 100-1000 families.

Step 2: Harvest Patent Data

Collect data within scope.

Query databases via Charter:
- Free: Google Patents, USPTO PatFT/AppFT, Espacenet, WIPO Patentscope
- Commercial: Orbit, PatSnap, Derwent, Lens.org (freemium)
- Combine keyword + classification codes → best coverage
Build queries systematically:

Query Construction:
+-------------------+------------------------------------------+
| Component         | Example                                  |
+-------------------+------------------------------------------+
| Core keywords     | "language model" OR "LLM" OR "GPT"       |
| Technical terms   | "attention mechanism" OR "transformer"    |
| Classification    | CPC: G06F40/*, G06N3/08                  |
| Date range        | filed:2019-2024                          |
| Assignee filter   | (optional) specific companies            |
+-------------------+------------------------------------------+

Download structured (CSV, JSON):
- Patent/app num, title, abstract, filing date
- Assignee/applicant, inventor(s)
- Classification codes, citation data
- Legal status (granted, pending, expired, abandoned)
Dedup by family (group national filings of same invention)
Record total family count + src databases

→ Structured dataset of families within scope, deduped + timestamped. Foundation for all subsequent.

If err: DB access limited → Google Patents + Lens.org (free) good coverage. Query returns too many (>5000) → add technical specificity. Too few (<50) → broaden keywords or add classification.

Step 3: Analyze Landscape

Map clusters, key players, trends.

Cluster analysis: Group by sub-tech:
- Classification codes or keyword clustering → 5-10 sub-areas
- Count families per cluster
- ID growing (recent surges) vs mature (flat/declining)
Key player analysis: Top 10 assignees by:
- Total family count (portfolio breadth)
- Recent filing rate (last 3 years — current activity)
- Avg citation count (quality proxy)
- Geographic breadth (US-only vs global)
Trend analysis: Filing trends over window:
- Overall volume by year
- Volume by cluster by year
- New entrants (assignees filing 1st time in domain)
Citation network: Most-cited patents (foundational):
- High forward citations = heavily relied upon
- Likely blocking patents or essential prior art
Produce Landscape Map: clusters, players, trends, key patents

→ Clear picture: who owns what, where activity concentrated, how landscape evolving. Key blocking patents ID'd. White spaces visible.

If err: Dataset too small for meaningful clustering → combine into broader groups. 1 assignee dominates (>50%) → analyze portfolio as separate sub-landscape.

Step 4: ID White Spaces + Risks

Strategic insights from landscape.

White space analysis (opportunities):
- Areas within scope w/ few/no filings
- Expired families → design space reopened
- Active areas w/ only 1 player (first-mover but no competition)
- White spaces adjacent to growing clusters (next frontier)
FTO risk screening (threats) — adapted from
```
heal
```
triage:
- Critical: Granted directly covering planned product/feature
- High: Pending apps likely to grant relevant claims
- Medium: Granted in adjacent areas could be broadly interpreted
- Low: Expired, narrow claims, geographically irrelevant
Competitive positioning:
- Where portfolio sits rel to competitors?
- Which competitors have blocking positions in target areas?
- Which interested in cross-licensing?
Produce Strategic Assessment: white spaces, FTO risks, positioning, recs

→ Actionable strategic recs: where to file, what to avoid, who to watch, what risks need detailed FTO.

If err: FTO risks ID'd — preliminary ONLY — does NOT replace formal FTO opinion from patent attorney. Flag critical for legal review. White spaces seem too good → verify search scope not accidentally excluded.

Step 5: Doc + Recommend

Package assessment for decision-makers.

Landscape Report sections:
- Exec summary (1 page: key findings, top risks, main recs)
- Scope + methodology (search terms, DBs, date range)
- Landscape overview (clusters, trends, key players + viz)
- White space analysis (opportunities ranked by strategic value)
- Risk assessment (FTO concerns ranked by severity)
- Recs (filing strategy, licensing targets, monitoring alerts)
Supporting data:
- Family list (structured, sortable)
- Cluster map (visual)
- Filing trend charts
- Key patent summaries (top 10-20 most relevant)
Ongoing monitoring:
- Alert queries for new filings in critical areas
- Review cadence (quarterly active, annually stable)

→ Complete landscape report → strategic IP decisions. Evidence-based, clearly scoped, actionable.

If err: Report too large → exec summary first + offer detailed sections on request. Exec summary always stands alone as decision doc.

Check

Traps

Too broad scope: "AI patents" not landscape — ocean. Be specific about tech + app
Single-DB reliance: No single DB complete coverage. ≥2 srcs
Ignore families: Count individual filings vs families inflates. 1 invention in 10 countries = 1 family not 10
Confuse apps w/ grants: Pending app not enforceable. Distinguish granted vs published apps
White space misinterp: Empty area = "nobody tried" or "everybody tried + failed." Investigate before assuming opportunity
Landscape as legal opinion: Strategic intelligence, not legal advice. FTO risks flagged need formal analysis by patent counsel

→

```
search-prior-art
```
— detailed prior art search for specific inventions or patent validity
```
screen-trademark
```
— trademark conflict screening + distinctiveness analysis for trademark side
```
file-trademark
```
— trademark filing procedures EUIPO, USPTO, Madrid Protocol
```
security-audit-codebase
```
— risk assessment methodology parallels IP risk screening
```
review-research
```
— literature review skills apply to prior art analysis