IP work has always depended on understanding how patent claims have fared in the real world. Whether you are drafting a new application, running an FTO, building an invalidity chart, or preparing a claim chart for litigation, the quality of the work can be strengthened by understanding how courts and patent offices have actually handled claims like the ones you are working on.
Which claim language survives Markman hearings? Which validity arguments have held up at the PTAB? How has infringement been mapped to accused products in analogous cases? Where and how do patents get challenged globally?
LexisNexis maintains one of the world's most comprehensive global patent litigation datasets, and it has access to deep insights and intelligence across more than 640,000 litigation documents collected daily from over 500 courts and agencies across 22 countries. LexisNexis litigation insights include US district court decisions, Federal Circuit opinions, PTAB proceedings, EPO opposition rulings, CJEU judgments, UPC proceedings, and patent board decisions across Asia-Pacific and the Americas.
Each record includes structured case-level data across more than 200 fields, including court documents, outcomes, damages awarded, infringement findings, validity decisions, and normalized party information. Together, these insights help patent professionals understand how patents, technologies, parties, and legal issues have been tested in real disputes.
Through this integration, trusted LexisNexis Global Patent Litigation Data will be accessible within Solve Intelligence workflows. The same body of case law that can inform a strong patent application also underpins a thorough invalidity analysis, a credible FTO opinion, and a well-grounded claim chart.
An attorney drafting claims can see how courts have construed functionally similar language, i.e., which formulations have survived Markman hearings, which have been narrowed through prosecution history estoppel, and which have been found indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112. During prosecution, the same data surfaces PTAB and IPR outcomes to inform responses to obviousness rejections and anticipate examiner arguments before they arise.
Building an invalidity chart means arguing that prior art anticipates or renders obvious the claims at issue. LexisNexis patent litigation data can provide broader context: how courts have treated validity challenges on similar claims, which prior art combinations have succeeded or failed in IPR proceedings, and how comparable patents have fared in opposition proceedings at the EPO and other authorities. Solve can surface that record directly in the workflow, so invalidity arguments are grounded in how similar issues have been evaluated in prior proceedings.
A freedom to operate analysis is only as reliable as the intelligence behind it. The LexisNexis integration lets Solve surface litigation history for third-party patents under analysis -- whether they have been challenged, how validity rulings have gone, what damages were awarded, and whether claims have been narrowed through litigation. That history is material to any serious FTO opinion, and it is now part of the Solve workflow.
Claim charts map patent claim elements to accused products or prior art. LexisNexis litigation insights can add context to that analysis by showing how courts have actually interpreted the claim language at issue -- which elements have been read broadly, which have been construed narrowly, and how infringement has been analyzed in analogous cases. The result is a claim chart that reflects not just the attorney's reading of the claims, but how those claims have been treated in court.
IP practices that handle both prosecution and litigation already understand that the decisions made early in a patent's life -- claim scope, term choice, how the specification supports the claims -- can shape its litigation posture years later. Aligning those decisions with litigation experience has traditionally required manual coordination between prosecution and litigation teams, if it happened at all. This integration helps bring litigation context closer to key patent workflows.
The coverage is global. With data from proceedings in the US, Europe, Asia-Pacific, and the Americas, including EPO oppositions, UPC proceedings, and decisions from courts and authorities across 22 countries, attorneys working on international matters can understand how patent claims are treated not just in US courts, but in key jurisdictions where their clients operate. For practices advising clients with global portfolios, that perspective is critical.
Last, the data stays current. LexisNexis brings together insights from more than 500 courts and agencies daily with updates on an ongoing basis. Every workflow in Solve that draws on LexisNexis global litigation data reflects recent decisions, not a static snapshot from the last time someone ran a separate search.
Interested in trying the integration? Reach out to us directly or book a demo at solveintelligence.com.
.jpeg)
