Patent practitioners using ClaimHit — generating charts for their own analysis or reviewing charts prepared by clients — regularly ask for a precise explanation of what each field means and how to weight the results. This guide provides that reference.
A practical note on how attorneys actually use these charts: the most common mistake is treating Insufficient Documentation as a soft negative. In our experience it is usually a signal to look harder, not to set the target aside. Some of the strongest cases we have supported involved products where three or four critical claim elements came back as Insufficient Documentation — and discovery produced internal technical documents confirming every one. Do not dismiss Insufficient Documentation. Flag it for the next stage.
The header — Patent, product, and verdict
Each chart opens with the patent number, patent title, accused product name, and company, followed by the Hit Verdict and Hit Score.
The Hit Verdict has four values: Likely Infringing, Partially Infringing, Insufficient Documentation, and Unlikely to Infringe. The Hit Score is the composite percentage from the four-factor formula.
Read the Hit Verdict as an indicator of analytical priority, not a legal conclusion. Likely Infringing means the evidence warrants formal investigation. Partially Infringing means significant evidence exists for some elements but not all. Insufficient Documentation means the product likely implements the technology but public documentation does not confirm it — common for proprietary hardware and enterprise software, and not equivalent to a finding of non-infringement. Unlikely to Infringe means the available evidence does not support a case.
The element table — column by column
The element table is the core of the chart. Each row corresponds to one element of the independent claim, drawn directly from the patent text.
- Claim Element — the exact language from the independent claim, broken into individual limitations
- Requirement Type — CORE (inventive steps), MANDATORY (functional requirements), OPTIONAL (preferred but not required), CONDITIONAL (dependent on other limitations)
- Product Feature — the specific feature or implementation found in the accused product that appears to correspond to the claim element
- Match Level — Full (specific documented evidence), Partial (some evidence but not a complete match), None (no evidence of implementation), Insufficient Documentation (product likely implements but no public documentation found)
- Evidence Source — the specific document, URL, version, or specification clause where the evidence was found
- Analysis — a brief explanation of how the product feature maps to the claim element language
Interpreting Match Level carefully
The distinction between None and Insufficient Documentation is the most consequential in the chart for practitioners.
None means the AI found evidence that the product does not implement the claimed feature, or found no indication that it does. This is a genuine negative signal and should be weighted accordingly.
Insufficient Documentation means the AI found no public documentation confirming implementation, but also no evidence of absence. For proprietary hardware, firmware, or enterprise software with limited public technical documentation, Insufficient Documentation is the expected result on the most important claim elements — not a reason to dismiss the target. When you see it on a critical element for a product you believe is infringing, treat it as a flag for discovery.
Insufficient Documentation is not the same as None. It means "we could not find public evidence" — not "the feature does not exist." In proprietary technology markets, this is the expected result for the most important claim elements.
Evidence sources — verification is mandatory
Every evidence source cited in a ClaimHit chart should be verified before the chart supports any formal position. AI models occasionally retrieve outdated pages, misidentify product versions, or cite documents that have since been revised.
For strong evidence sources — specific URLs with version numbers and direct feature references — click through and confirm the document says what the chart indicates. For weaker sources such as general product descriptions or marketing pages, note that these support a case only at the preliminary level. If a critical claim element rests on weak evidence alone, flag that explicitly when presenting the chart. The chart organises the initial picture; source verification is the practitioner's responsibility.
The summary and recommendation fields
The Summary field provides a plain-language synthesis of the element analysis. Read it as a starting point, not a conclusion — it reflects AI assessment and may contain oversimplifications or errors that claim construction would reveal.
The Recommendation field typically indicates one of three things: consider formal analysis, request discovery, or insufficient basis for proceeding. These suggestions come from the AI based on score and evidence quality. Use them as prompts for your own judgment rather than directives.
What to do after reviewing a chart
If the chart shows Likely Infringing with multiple strong evidence sources, the next step is straightforward: verify the cited documents, check prosecution history for relevant claim construction issues, and assess whether a formal opinion is warranted.
If the chart shows Partially Infringing or Insufficient Documentation on key elements, the more interesting question is whether discovery would likely surface the missing evidence. This scenario — strong overall signals but gaps in public documentation — is often commercially significant. A product you believe is infringing but cannot fully document from public sources is exactly what discovery is for.
Either way, a ClaimHit chart is appropriate context for an initial attorney consultation. It is not an appropriate standalone basis for a licensing letter, legal proceeding, or public infringement assertion. A formal opinion from a licensed practitioner is required before any of those steps.