Skip to main content

Reading Your Report

Your report is the analytical work-product of the analysis. This section explains each component and how to read it critically.

The FTO score​

A single score summarizing the freedom-to-operate position across the analyzed subject matter, weighted by both the strength of the charted overlaps and the legal status of the references involved. Treat it as a triage signal — a way to rank matters and focus review — not as a conclusion. The score is only as meaningful as the findings beneath it, which is where your judgment applies.

The score and the opinion tell one colour story​

The Evalify Score and the FTO opinion always agree, so you never have to reconcile a reassuring number against a cautious verdict. The opinion (Clear to Operate / Conditional / Blocked) sets the colour band; the score shows where within that band you sit:

  • Green — Clear to Operate
  • Amber — Conditional
  • Red — Blocked

So a Conditional verdict always shows amber, never green — even when much of the landscape is clear. Within the amber band, a stronger position sits higher (for example, blocked only in the US but clear everywhere else) and a weaker one sits lower. You will never see a reassuring green number beside a Conditional or Blocked verdict — that is deliberate, so the report can never read as a false clear.

The one-line opinion states exactly where you stand. A matter blocked in the US but clear in EP, JP and KR — and at risk in CN — reads as an overall Conditional position, with an amber score and an amber badge, and an opinion such as "Blocked in US, at risk (Doctrine-of-Equivalents) in CN, clear in EP, JP and KR as searched." A market that is at risk is never described as clear.

This colour match holds everywhere the verdict appears — the web app, the exported PDF, and the Word export — so the badge colour and the score colour are always consistent, whichever format you share.

A Clear to Operate result can still sit just inside green rather than at the top of the band when relevant applications are still pending and likely to grant — the monitoring pressure weighs on the score without pulling it out of green. When that's the case, a dedicated key finding says so: you're clear as of the analysis date, but there are N pending applications to monitor that could change the conclusion if they grant.

Clearance confidence​

Alongside the score, the report shows a clearance confidence signal (High / Medium / Low) — a read on how well-supported the position is, blending how thoroughly the subject matter was charted with how decisively the charted claims cleared. Use it to gauge how much weight the score can bear before you turn to the findings beneath it.

Clearance by jurisdiction​

Freedom to operate is a per-market question, so the report shows a separate clearance for each searched market — a product can be blocked in one market and clear in others. A map colours each searched market by its own computed verdict (clear / at-risk / blocked), and markets outside your scope read as Not searched rather than clear. When a block is confined to some markets, the opinion frames it as a conditional position — clear elsewhere as searched, with a redesign or market-avoidance path for the market that blocks. See Clearance by Jurisdiction for how these verdicts are computed and what "as searched" means.

Aspect-level findings​

The subject matter is presented as its constituent technical aspects, each with its own read: which aspects appear clear, and which carry potential exposure and against which references. This tells you where in the product the risk concentrates, so you can direct effort to the aspects — and the claim limitations — that actually decide the matter.

Claim charts​

For each relevant reference, Evalify presents a limitation-by-limitation claim chart mapping the claim's limitations to the corresponding features of the subject matter, with the deciding limitation identified. This is the evidentiary core of the report:

  • Read it as an all-elements analysis — a potential literal read requires every limitation to be present; a single absent limitation is what establishes clearance for that claim.
  • The chart shows you why the tool reached its read, limitation by limitation, so you can verify, challenge, or extend it (including any equivalents analysis, which remains a matter for your judgment).

The quality cross-check​

On a claim chart you may see a Quality Cross-check panel. After the primary read clears a claim, a second, independent AI model — from a different provider, so its blind spots don't overlap with the first — stress-tests that clearance from the opposite side. It takes the position of a patent owner arguing the claim is infringed, and looks for any limitation the primary read treated as absent that could credibly be argued present, testing both a literal read and the doctrine of equivalents.

Anything it raises appears as a review-only exposure, with:

  • a threat rating (1–10) — how seriously a court might entertain the argument, so you can prioritize;
  • the type of exposure — a factual gap (the record is merely silent on a limitation), a doctrine-of-equivalents argument, or a claim-construction question over a term of degree;
  • the argument itself, so you can weigh it directly.

Two things to know about how it's bounded:

  • It never changes your score or verdict. Every item is a flag for your review, never an assertion — the cross-check can raise a question, but it can never override, or even contradict, the primary claim chart.
  • It only speaks when it matters. It looks only at narrow-margin claims (those cleared by just one or two limitations) and only raises an exposure when the whole claim is genuinely arguable — so you get a short, prioritized list of the closest calls, not noise.

Treat a cross-check exposure as a prompt to look closer at that limitation, where your judgment adds the most.

Per-reference detail​

For each relevant reference you get the working detail an assessment needs: bibliographic data, current assignee, legal status (in force / lapsed / expired / abandoned / pending), patent family context, and estimated term/expiry. Legal status is decisive — an expired or abandoned reference is a materially different risk from an enforceable one, and pending applications are flagged as future risk rather than current blockers.

When a reference surfaces as an application publication that has since granted, Evalify charts it against its granted family sibling's claims — the enforceable claims — rather than the as-filed application text, and labels it granted from application …. An application with no granted family member is shown as a monitored pending application, never a current blocker.

Risk assessment​

Per-aspect and per-reference risk characterizations, weighted by enforceability, that roll up into the overall position. Where relevant, a finding also carries an evidence-of-use (detectability) read — how readily an infringement would be apparent from ordinary product use, ranging from evident on use through to undiscoverable — since a limitation only a teardown would reveal carries different practical exposure from one visible in normal operation. These are Evalify's assessments for you to review — the basis for your recommendation, not a substitute for it.

Courses of action​

For each potential blocker, a set of mitigation strategies — design-around, licensing, challenging validity, awaiting expiry, and others — framed as strategic options to evaluate with the client.

Supporting analysis​

Depending on the analysis, the report also includes:

  • Prior art & invalidity evidence — its own dedicated section (in the web report and the exports). For each of the strongest blockers, it lists the prior art the patent office itself cited against that patent during its prosecution: earlier patents — shown with the examiner's X / Y / A classification wherever the office recorded one (X bears on novelty on its own, Y on obviousness in combination, A is background) — and examiner-cited references. Each reference shows how long before the blocker's filing it published, to the month, and references more than 20 years older fold into a collapsed "Legacy references" group so the most recent, most probative art leads. This is advisory evidence to inform a validity challenge; by design it never changes the freedom-to-operate verdict or the Evalify score (validity is a different question from infringement).
  • Non-patent literature — independent scholarly and standards references bearing on the validity of the assessed patents, drawn from open sources (academic literature via OpenAlex, arXiv preprints, biomedical literature via PubMed, and IETF internet standards), selected by each patent's technical field and filtered to references that genuinely predate it. Each shows its source, publication date, and a link, so you can verify it directly — and the in-report assistant can tell you both which sources Evalify searches in general and which ones were cited in this analysis. These references now surface reliably even on a clear analysis (for example, "Non-patent literature — 11 references predating filing"), where they had previously been able to read as zero.
  • Adjacent-market analysis — related applications or markets where the subject matter faces more freedom.
  • Landscape and related-products context — a broader view of the relevant patent landscape.

The interactive assistant​

Each report includes an AI assistant grounded in that specific analysis. Use it to probe a particular claim chart, clarify a reference's legal status, or pressure-test a finding — in context, without leaving the report.

Ongoing monitoring​

FTO is a point-in-time assessment; the landscape shifts as applications publish and grant. You can place a Counsel Grade analysis under monitoring so it is re-checked on a schedule and you are alerted to concrete legal events against the matter — a new relevant patent publishing, a pending patent granting (with its now-enforceable claims surfaced for review), a blocker lapsing or expiring, or any other legal-status change. You can also name specific patents to track, and choose which events raise an alert. See the FAQs for how it works and what it costs.

Reliance

This report is an analytical work-product to inform your assessment. It is not an opinion of counsel and does not constitute legal advice. The professional opinion, and the professional judgment behind it, remain yours. See the FAQs.