If your search strategy still reads like a séance with the spirits of Boolean—quotation marks here, a wildcard there—good news: 2025 is the year prior art search stops being a scavenger hunt and starts behaving like a first‑chair associate who actually read the spec. The center of gravity has shifted from keyword roulette to feature‑level understanding, with results arriving as organized, evidence‑ready packets rather than dubious hunches. Think fewer tabs, more traction.
From keywords to claimable features
Modern systems begin by extracting the invention’s likely patentable features and aligning them to specific passages in prior art. That means you can identify core novelty, focus invention meetings on what matters, and draft around the art with confidence—complete with clickable, feature‑specific citations and easy‑to‑read summaries you can staple to a disclosure meeting agenda. It’s not just fast; it’s defensible and repeatable at scale across a corpus on the order of tens of millions of patents and publications.
Evidence wins arguments, and accuracy determines whether you’ll cite a result or just sigh at it. One of the metrics we look at is how accurately can we find a patent based on the disclosure. I highly doubt your standard prior art search team can answer that, we can! We’re a team of researchers and understand how to run evolutions.
Our overall accuracy is 96%, grounded in an evaluation where the correct patent was found within the top results and feature citations were mapped—numbers that move this conversation from novelty theater to plan‑able reality.
For the measurement nerds among us, we use an F1 on a set of 160 disclosure–patent pairs, with model/version logging to ensure reproducibility.
What practitioners actually do today
On a recent IPWatchdog webinar titled Webinar: AI Prior Art Searches Perfected – Determining Novelty in Minutes we ran a survey – “How do you conduct your prior art searches?”
Half of respondents still run searches themselves, with another 39% leaning on internal/external search teams. Only ~11% say they primarily use an AI platform today—a sign not of skepticism but of an adoption curve that’s about to steepen. On a similar survey on whether they’d use a perfect prior art search, 93% said yes (either always or in some cases). My inner litigator interpreted that as: if you can give me repeatable coverage with citations I can swear by, I’ll take two.
Not only are folks often running the searches themselves or relying on 3rd parties, over half are running searches at least once every 8 weeks. Which likely means they’re running a search as often or more often than they’re drafting a patent. Only 10% of our survey did not run searches.
From features to filings: work backward from novelty
The biggest shift is methodological. Instead of hoping keyword salad lands near the inventive concept, we start with feature‑level identification—“instantly know the most likely patentable features”—and let the system surface aligned art with clickable, feature‑specific citations. You can then draft claims around the art, build your invalidity case with §102/§103 references (including secondary references), and export charts with quotes and cites in minutes. Bonus: the workflow has built‑in cost‑recovery logic, which warms even the iciest billing department.
This isn’t a one‑act play. Using the same search methodology, you can focus invention meetings, sharpen claim scope, reduce continuations, and avoid abandonments—the quiet killers of portfolio ROI. In litigation, feature‑mapped citations make invalidity charts feel less like arts‑and‑crafts and more like advocacy. And because the citations are tied to claim elements, you can sanity‑check novelty positions before they become the world’s most expensive “oops.”
What you should expect in 2025 and beyond
- Start with features, not keywords. Let the tool decompose the disclosure so you can argue novelty, not nouns.
- Demand citations you can click and export. If it can’t become a chart, it won’t become a brief.
- Insist on evaluation transparency. Benchmarks (top‑10 hit rate, F1 on known pairs) and model/version logging should be table stakes.
- Use one workflow from idea to IPR. The same search should power drafting, prosecution, clearance, and invalidity—because the art doesn’t change when the forum does
If you’re ready to trade haystacks for holdings (and maybe retire that 12‑tab spreadsheet), book a demo or start a free trial. Your future self—somewhere between the IDS and the notice of allowance—will thank you.
Leave a Reply