Patent Search & Prior Art Analysis

What is Patent Search & Prior Art Analysis?

Check novelty and prior art worldwide before filing your patent — avoid rejection, strengthen your claims, and save on refiling costs.

A patent search, also known as a prior art search or novelty search, is the systematic examination of all publicly available information predating a patent application — including granted patents, published patent applications, scientific journal articles, conference papers, product manuals, and any other publicly available disclosure — to assess whether an invention meets the fundamental patentability criteria of novelty and inventive step. In India, these criteria are governed by Sections 2(1)(l) and 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended, and they form the cornerstone of any patent examination conducted by the Indian Patent Office under the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks. The legal significance of a prior art search cannot be overstated. An invention is patentable in India only if it is new, that is, it does not form part of the state of the art — meaning everything disclosed to the public anywhere in the world before the filing date. If any single prior art document (or a combination of documents in the case of inventive step) discloses all the essential elements of the claimed invention, the patent application will be rejected during examination or, worse, the granted patent will be invalidated in post-grant opposition or revocation proceedings. An Intellectual Property Appellate Board or High Court decision to invalidate a patent after it has been granted can represent a total loss of investment in prosecution, litigation, and product development. A patent search is distinct from an FTO (Freedom to Operate) search, though both are conducted in patent databases. A prior art or novelty search asks whether the invention can be patented. An FTO search asks whether practising the invention would infringe any currently in-force patent claims of a third party. Both are valuable but serve different strategic purposes. Startups and technology companies should ideally conduct both: the novelty search before filing, and the FTO search before product launch or significant capital deployment. The databases searched during a comprehensive prior art analysis include the Indian Patent Office database (InPASS and Speedata), the European Patent Office's esp@cenet (covering over 150 million documents), the USPTO full-text and image database, the WIPO PatentScope database (covering PCT applications and national phase entries from over 150 countries), the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) database, the Japan Patent Office J-PlatPat database, the Korean Intellectual Property Office KIPRISPlus database, as well as non-patent literature sources such as Google Scholar, PubMed, IEEE Xplore, and specialist technical databases depending on the field of technology. The analysis phase of the search is as important as the database querying itself. A skilled patent searcher constructs Boolean search queries using International Patent Classification (IPC) codes, Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) codes, and carefully selected keyword strings to minimise false positives while ensuring comprehensive coverage. The IPC and CPC taxonomy, administered by the World Intellectual Property Organisation and the European Patent Office respectively, allows classification of inventions by technical field to a granular level that keyword searching alone cannot achieve. Once the search is complete, a comprehensive prior art search report identifies each relevant document, explains how it relates to the claimed invention, and provides an opinion on the novelty and inventive step of the invention as claimed. The report also suggests modifications to the proposed claims or alternative claim scopes that avoid the identified prior art while still protecting the inventive concept. This claim scoping advice is one of the most commercially valuable outputs of the search, as it directly shapes the scope of patent protection ultimately obtained. Common errors that make a prior art search ineffective include restricting the search to only one jurisdiction (for example, only India or only the USA) when inventions are disclosed globally, failing to search non-patent literature which is frequently the most relevant prior art in biotechnology and pharmaceutical fields, and conducting the search without a clear understanding of the inventive concept from the inventor's perspective. Patent agents who conduct searches without adequate technical knowledge of the field often miss conceptually similar prior art that uses different terminology. The cost of a thorough prior art search is a fraction of the cost of a patent application, and an order of magnitude less than the cost of a patent being refused after full examination or invalidated after litigation. For Indian startups, particularly those seeking DPIIT recognition for startup benefits or those seeking to monetise IP through licensing or acquisition, a clean prior art search report that demonstrates the novelty of the invention is a commercially and strategically essential document.

How It Works

1. 1

   Invention Disclosure and Technical Briefing

   Our patent attorneys conduct a structured interview with the inventor to understand the inventive concept, its technical context, the problem it solves, and how it differs from what the inventor believes already exists. This scoping session is critical to directing the search efficiently.

2. 2

   IPC/CPC Classification and Query Design

   We identify the relevant International Patent Classification (IPC) and Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) codes for the technology, and design Boolean search queries combining classification codes with keyword sets in English and, where relevant, other languages for non-English patent databases.

3. 3

   Multi-Database Patent Literature Search

   We search all major global patent databases including IP India InPASS/Speedata, USPTO, EPO esp@cenet, WIPO PatentScope, CNIPA, J-PlatPat, and KIPRISPlus, systematically recording all potentially relevant documents identified in each database.

4. 4

   Non-Patent Literature Search

   We extend the search to scientific journals, conference proceedings, product manuals, standards documents, and online publications using sources such as Google Scholar, PubMed, IEEE Xplore, and Scopus as appropriate to the field of technology.

5. 5

   Analysis and Relevance Rating

   Each identified document is reviewed and rated for relevance to the invention's essential features. We prepare a comparative analysis table showing which elements of the invention are disclosed in each prior art document and how they relate to proposed claims.

6. 6

   Search Report and Strategic Recommendations

   We deliver a comprehensive written report including the search methodology, list of databases searched, full prior art findings with citations, novelty and inventive step opinion, and recommended claim scope modifications to maximise the chance of grant and the commercial breadth of protection.

Government Fees

Professional Fees