Does your compound
actually fall inside that claim?
We read the patent’s real claim language, extract the actual scaffold and R-group positions, and map your specific compound onto them structurally — verified with RDKit, not guessed from a keyword match. You get a clear, reasoned verdict: inside the claim, outside it, or genuinely ambiguous.
The atoms are public. Who’s asking isn’t. We never publish client names, case details, or engagement records — anywhere, ever.
You send the compound and the patent
A structure (name or SMILES) and a specific patent number — or a drug/target if you don't have one yet and want us to find the relevant patent.
We extract the real claim scope
The actual core scaffold and R-group definitions read from the patent's own claim text, not a paraphrase — then your compound mapped onto every position.
You get a clear, written verdict
Falls inside the claim, falls outside it, or genuinely ambiguous — with the reasoning shown, not asserted. Single-patent technical screening, not a legal opinion.
Why confidentiality is the whole offer
You won’t find our clients anywhere on this site
No client logos, no named case studies, no engagement records. What a lead compound is, which patent a team is worried about, and whether a design-around exists — that is exactly the kind of information a research or legal strategy team cannot have surfacing in a public blog post or a portfolio page. So it never does.
See a real screen
A real MEMBER verdict, run against a real patent’s genus claim — including how the engine handles a claim-drafting pattern most tools miss entirely.
Every screen includes an explicit “what we claim / what we don't claim” section — we identify structural overlap and its relationship to claimed scope, not legal conclusions like infringement or validity, and we only ever assess the single patent you send us, not its full family. That judgment, and the rest of the family, stays with you and your counsel.