Prior art search
Search that reads the patents
Most prior art tools rank documents by how similar they look and leave the reading to you. IPtorch reads the strongest references in full and tells you, claim by claim, what each one actually discloses, with the passage it came from.
Describe the invention, or hand it a document
Type it in plain language, drop a PDF, or paste a patent number or link. From a document we pull out the text and the drawings and rebuild the claim set, then show it to you to correct before anything is searched. Fix a claim and the search uses your correction.
It searches many ways, not one
A long description makes one blurry query. We break the invention into its distinct technical ideas and search each one separately, in more than one phrasing, and fuse the results. Our own patent database is searched alongside the public registers, so a document that only one of them holds still turns up.
Then it reads the best ones properly
The strongest candidates are read in full, not skimmed from an abstract. Each is mapped against your claims one limitation at a time: disclosed, partly disclosed, or absent. A reference that only looks relevant falls away at this stage, which is the stage most tools do not have.
Every statement carries its evidence
A finding is only as good as the sentence behind it, so each one is tied to a verbatim passage with its paragraph number, and quotations are checked back against the document before they reach you. Where a passage could not be found, the row says so rather than quietly standing.
And it hands you something you can file
The report is a claim chart you can read, export and share. From the same evidence it will build a complete third-party preissuance submission under 37 CFR 1.290: the concise descriptions, the document list, the copies and translations, the fee position and an audit of every requirement the rule sets, in one archive ready to upload.
Also in the box
What this is, and what it is not
This is a search tool. It finds and explains prior art, and it is good at it. It is not a clearance search, a freedom-to-operate opinion or a patentability opinion, and no result here should be read as one.
A short result list is not a clear field. No search covers everything: not this one, and not the professional searches that cost thousands. If the question is whether something can be filed or sold, that decision belongs to an attorney working from a full collection.
Check the citations. Every finding is quoted and pinpointed so that checking one takes seconds. Do it before you rely on it. Machine-written analysis overreaches sometimes, and the quotation is there so you can catch it when it does.