Why Claim Mapping Quality Drives Institution Rates
The PTAB's institution decision is built around whether the petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. That determination is made primarily by reading the petition itself — and specifically the claim charts that map each claim element to a disclosure in the prior art references. An incomplete or loosely mapped chart forces the Board to do interpretive work the petitioner should have done. Against seven references and a multi-claim patent, the volume of element-by-element analysis required is substantial — typically the largest single labor component of a petition. It's also the component most amenable to systematic, structured work.
Building the Claim Chart and Argument Structure in iManage
An AI Labor Company agent works through each of the seven identified prior art references in Westlaw Edge and Lexis+, mapping each claim element of the challenged patent to specific disclosures in each reference with citation. The output is a complete IPR claim chart — element-by-element, across all grounds — structured for direct use in the petition. Beyond the charts, the agent generates a draft argument structure for each ground of invalidity, organized by the standard §103 and §102 framework the PTAB expects. The full filing package, including claim charts, argument drafts, and exhibit index, assembles into iManage for partner review and finalization. Anaqua carries the portfolio context throughout.
The Business Case: Higher Institution Rates, More Client Capacity
An IPR petition at a boutique runs $50,000–$150,000 in fees. A petition that fails institution because the claim mapping was thin represents full sunk cost with no opportunity to re-petition on the same grounds. The quality argument for thorough claim charting is direct: the PTAB rewards it. Beyond the individual petition, the capacity argument matters equally — an agent that handles 55–75% of the claim-mapping and research work on a 30-day petition frees the partner and associates to take on additional matters rather than being bottlenecked on a single filing. The agent is typically delivering a complete draft claim chart package in about seven weeks, though for compressed timelines, the initial claim chart outputs are available earlier.
Can the agent handle IPR petitions involving means-plus-function claim elements?
Yes. The agent identifies means-plus-function claim elements and maps them to the corresponding structures disclosed in the patent specification before conducting prior art mapping — consistent with how the PTAB interprets §112(f) claims.
What if the partner identifies a new prior art reference during review?
Additional references can be added during the engagement. The agent produces incremental claim charts for new references in the same format as the initial analysis.