Continuous Patent Intelligence · Deep Tech Investment Diligence

FTO intelligence that
never stops watching.

IP Destiny delivers continuous freedom-to-operate analysis for deep tech investors. Claim mapping, litigation context, calibrated confidence, and overnight monitoring — so you know what changed before it matters.

15+
Sources searched
Nightly
Research cycle
4-dim
Confidence scoring
Live
CourtListener
The Problem
Most IP analysis happens once.
IP Destiny never stops.

By the time your portfolio company's patent landscape lands on your desk, it's already outdated. A continuation was filed. A new PTAB petition was submitted. A competitor's claim scope expanded overnight.

Traditional FTO analysis is a snapshot. It's accurate on the day it's delivered and wrong every day after that.

"Whether a blocking patent has been asserted, by whom, and how it fared is often more decision-relevant than the claim chart itself." — Daniel Gould, Castle Fund
Traditional Analysis
IP Destiny
Commissioned once — delivered in days
Running continuously — results every morning
Goes stale immediately after delivery
Confidence scores decay — you know when to refresh
No contradiction detection
Contradictions surfaced automatically every cycle
Continuation filings missed until next commission
Overnight detection — delta brief delivered by morning
No litigation context included
CourtListener — enforcement posture and willfulness risk
$50K–$150K per FTO opinion
Continuous intelligence — fraction of the cost
Platform Capabilities
Everything your IP diligence requires.
Every capability below runs continuously — not once. Mercury reruns every night and delivers only what changed.
What Mercury analyzes
Every source that matters for FTO and investment diligence.
USPTO — patents, applications, continuations
PTAB — IPR petitions, post-grant review
PCT/EPO/JPO — international patent families
CourtListener — federal court litigation history
Claim decomposition — element by element
Patent figures — multimodal AI analysis
Product documentation — TIM construction
Assignee chain — ownership and licensing
Bill of materials — component-level IP detection
Manufacturing process — method patent analysis
Geographic scope — multi-jurisdiction FTO
Launch date — patent expiration filtering
What Mercury detects
Changes, contradictions, and risks — automatically, every night.
Continuation filings — overnight detection
Contradictions — conflicting evidence surfaced
Litigation — enforcement posture, willfulness risk
Confidence decay — findings age, scores degrade
PTAB petitions — IPR filing alerts
Assignee changes — ownership transfer signals
Evidence gaps — what can't be confirmed
Arguments against — devil's advocate built in
What Mercury delivers
Decision-oriented output an investor can act on.
Current best answer — single updated conclusion
Delta brief — only what changed overnight
Calibrated confidence — reliability diagram
Ignorance map — what Mercury can't know
Provenance chain — full audit trail per finding
FTO risk rating — HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
Tier 1 brief — structured investment analysis
History — how understanding evolved over time
Version control — delta FTO on product changes
Expiration filter — excludes patents before launch date
Configurable methodology — 8 analysis steps, opt in/out
FTO opinion draft — attorney-grade document generated automatically
Landscape search — product description to ranked patent shortlist
PDF brief — attorney-ready export with full claim chart
Live patent fetch — real title, assignee, and claims in seconds
Design-Around Methodology
Two internationally recognized frameworks — automatically applied to every blocking claim.
TRIZ — Altshuller 40 Inventive Principles applied per claim element
3 ranked design-around paths with avoidance confidence scores
Attorney verification note per design-around path
Alice/Mayo § 101 eligibility analysis — is this patent even valid?
IPR recommendation — when to challenge instead of design around
Key Federal Circuit cases cited per analysis
Methodology: triz40.com + Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014)
What no other platform does
Four capabilities you won't
find anywhere else.
Differentiator 01
Continuous Monitoring
Research reruns every night. You receive only what changed. The intelligence never goes stale. A continuation filed at 11pm is in your delta brief by morning.
Differentiator 02
Contradiction Detection
Mercury actively searches for evidence that disagrees with its own findings. When sources conflict, the contradiction is surfaced automatically — not buried. Intellectual honesty built in.
Differentiator 03
Calibrated Confidence
Confidence scores backed by attorney agreement data and a reliability diagram. "84% confidence" means something specific — and you can show the calibration curve to outside counsel.
Differentiator 04
Product Definition — Step 0
Most FTO tools take a product description and run. Mercury takes a complete product definition — then runs. The difference is 40-55% confidence vs 85-95% confidence.
Technical specs + multimodal assets
Bill of materials — component-level IP
Manufacturing process — method patents
Geographic scope — multi-jurisdiction
Launch date — patent expiration filtering
Customer feature list — marketing claim risk
Interactive gap-filling — Mercury asks what's missing
Completeness → Confidence
Quick — description only40-55%
Standard — specs + process + geo65-75%
Professional — full definition85-95%
Version Control
Product v1.1 changelog: "replaced SPAD array vendor" → Mercury re-runs only affected claim charts. 44 of 47 findings preserved.
How It Works
From question to continuous intelligence.
1
Submit your matter
Provide the company name, patent numbers to analyze, and product documentation. IP Destiny configures sources, evidence standards, and monitoring rules automatically.
Takes 30 seconds
2
Mercury builds a Technology Implementation Model
Mercury analyzes product documentation to identify components, processes, and technical architecture — the TIM becomes the foundation for claim element mapping.
~20 minutes
3
Claim elements are mapped and evaluated
Each claim element is assessed against the TIM and product evidence. Findings classified: Clearly Present, Probably Present, Possibly Present, Probably Absent, Clearly Absent, Insufficient Evidence.
Per claim
4
Attorney calibrates the model — not every finding
A patent attorney reviews a sample of findings and rates them agree or disagree. Those ratings calibrate Mercury's confidence model — teaching it what 80% confident actually means in practice. Mercury then runs autonomously, alerting for human review only when something material changes.
Calibration, not review
5
Continuous monitoring activates
Every night Mercury reruns the research cycle — USPTO, PTAB, CourtListener, and all configured sources. Every morning you receive a delta brief: only what changed. The matter runs indefinitely.
Runs forever
Litigation Context
Whether a blocking patent
has been asserted.

FTO analysis tells you whether your product reads on a claim. Litigation context tells you whether the patent holder actually enforces — and how aggressively.

IP Destiny integrates with CourtListener — 8.2 million federal court opinions — to surface enforcement history, active cases, and willfulness risk for every blocking patent.

Daniel Gould, Castle Fund
"Whether a blocking reference has been asserted, by whom, and how it fared is often more decision-relevant than the claim chart itself."
Enforcement posture — aggressive, moderate, defensive, none
Willfulness risk — HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW based on case history
Active and historical cases — plaintiff, defendant, outcome
Monitored continuously — alerts when new cases are filed
Litigation Context · CourtListener
Live
Total Cases
14
Enforcement
Aggressive
Willfulness
High
Cases Found
Acme Corp v. Defendant Inc — D. Del. — Active · Filed 2024
Acme Corp v. TechCo LLC — N.D. Cal. — Settled 2023
Acme Corp v. StartupX — D. Del. — Dismissed 2022
Mercury Assessment
Patent holder has asserted this patent in 14 cases over 3 years. Enforcement posture is aggressive. Willfulness risk is high — document design-around efforts.
Calibrated Confidence
Confidence you can show
outside counsel.

Most AI platforms generate confidence scores based on model self-assessment. An attorney will ask: "When this says 80% confident — does that actually mean 80%?" IP Destiny answers that question with data.

Every attorney agree/disagree rating is tracked against the predicted confidence. Over time, IP Destiny can show whether its 80% findings are right about 80% of the time — and correct itself when they are not.

When Mercury says 80% confident — it should be right about 80% of the time
Attorney ratings build the accuracy record — agree/disagree on each finding
Accuracy score — plain language measure of how reliable the confidence is
Confidence accuracy chart — visual proof that stated confidence matches reality
Confidence decay — findings age and degrade until re-verified
5-point finding scale — 5 Clearly Present / 4 Probably Present / 3 Uncertain / 2 Probably Absent / 1 Clearly Absent / IE Insufficient Evidence
Does 80% really mean 80%?
Attorney agreement tracked across all rated findings · n=24 ratings
Attorney Agreement
81%
Accuracy Score
86/100
Calibration
Good
Ratings
n=24
Confidence by Dimension
Evidence quality
92%
Source reliability
88%
Reasoning confidence
81%
Legal confidence
52%
Attorney Review Interface — 1-5 Scale Rating per Finding
Clearly Present · 95% confidence
A battery management integrated circuit — confirmed present in product TIM. Module identified in architecture documentation.
Probably Present · 72% confidence
A processor configured to compute state of charge using a physics-based electrochemical model — inferred from CORDIC math coprocessor in TIM.
Evidence Provenance
Every finding has a
complete audit trail.

IP Destiny maintains an append-only ledger of every action Mercury takes — source retrieval, reasoning, model inference, attorney review. Every conclusion is traceable, reproducible, and challengeable.

Nothing is fabricated. Nothing is hidden. Every confidence score has a provenance chain behind it.

Provenance Chain — Per Finding
📄
Source
USPTO Patent Full Text · US11680790B2
🔍
Evidence
Product spec — "256×256 SPAD array with sub-nanosecond timing"
Reasoning
SPAD array matches claim 1 element — comprising language applies
🤖
Model
Claude Sonnet 4.6 · Evidence quality 92% · Reasoning 81%
Reviewer
Daniel Gould · Castle Fund · USPTO Registered · V2 · Agreed
Finding
Probably infringes Claim 1 · 84% overall confidence
Patent intelligence that
never stops.

Submit your first matter. Mercury begins analyzing immediately. Research runs every night — you receive only what changed.

IP Destiny is part of Totality Law
The patent intelligence package inside Mercury's continuous legal intelligence platform
Explore Totality Law →