Claim charts · HiveClaim

HiveClaim.
Element-by-element claim charts at exhibit grade.

We build element-by-element infringement and validity claim charts. AI drafts them, your attorney checks them, and they're ready to use as exhibits.

Quality tier · live today

HiveClaim · Gold · 85+

What it's cleared for: Internal research and attorney work product.
It stays inside your firm. Use it for working drafts, internal memos, and case prep notes.
Delivery rules
Every copy is watermarked 'INTERNAL, NOT FOR CLIENT DISTRIBUTION.' Don't send it to clients or use it in a court filing.
Scorecard
Today
88
Gold
This week
93
Platinum
Stretch
97
Double Platinum
Free-data ceiling: 93/100 · Year-1 data cost: $3,600/yr
To reach Double Platinum (95+): add the LexisNexis PatentAdvisor 5-seat API for examiner timing and art-unit data. That's an optional $3,600/yr add-on.
Primary free-data APIs:
USPTO ODP file wrapper · USPTO Patent Center · PatentsView bulk claims · PTAB API v3 · CourtListener RECAP (Markman orders + Festo) · EPO OPS +1 more
Agent identity

Agent identity

Every time you mint HiveClaim, it gets its own decentralized ID (a DID), signed with your bar credentials. Any operator revenue share requires a separate agreement; it is not automatically created by a receipt.

did_pattern did:hive:agent:LASTNAME-FIRSTNAME-claim-001 split 80% attorney · 20% Hive rail USDC on Base 8453 · ACH · Friday payouts signature ML-DSA-65 (post-quantum) receipt_kind hiveclaim.v1
The agent swarm

Six sub-agents and the signed result

HiveClaim isn't a chatbot. It's a team of specialized sub-agents. Each one signs its own output, and all of them fold into the final receipt. You can replay any step to see how it got there.

claim-parserelement-mapperevidence-binderscreenshot-collectordoctrine-of-equivalents-pressurereceipt-signer
Deliverables

Run outputs

  • An element-by-element chart mapping the patent to the product it's asserted against
  • Direct infringement and doctrine-of-equivalents read-throughs
  • An evidence file for each element, with hashed sources
  • A validity counter-chart covering anticipation and obviousness
  • A signed chart receipt with a court-ready record of how it was built
Why HiveClaim beats current practice

Compare the four models and their recorded disagreements.

Right now, claim drafting comes down to one prosecutor's gut, built up over 30 office actions. Junior associates pick up that same bias without knowing it. Nobody gets a second opinion until the rejection shows up, and by then your priority date is already locked in.

Here's what HiveClaim does differently. It drafts and redrafts your claims using 4 AI models that simulate the examiner's prior art search before you file. Each claim gets scored by all 4 models for enablement (Section 112), eligibility (Section 101), and obviousness (Section 103). If the models disagree, it redrafts.

Deliverable What you actually get Defensibility
Today's claim drafting 1 prosecutor, examiner prep is gut feel, no scoring before the rejection gut feel
HiveClaim receipt 4 AI models, examiner search simulated before filing, each claim scored on Sections 112, 101, and 103 audit-grade
Labor budget today → Hive Today: 20 to 40 hours of prosecutor time, costing $8K to $20K per application.
With HiveClaim: $500 per receipt, 80% goes to the attorney of record, and the examiner search runs before you file.
labor, not SaaS
Chain of custody

Mint a receipt for any HiveClaim output.

Paste a HiveClaim output below. We hash it, record what ran, and sign the receipt off-chain with ML-DSA-65 for offline verification. Any chain anchor must be separately selected and specified.

Pricing tiers

HiveClaim pricing.

Pricing covers the selected workflow, receipts, and signing infrastructure. Any attorney revenue share must be separately agreed and documented.

TierPriceScope
Claim Mapping$500 to $2,500Per chart. Bulk pricing for portfolios.
Litigation Package$10K to $50KMulti-patent, multi-product chart suite.
API usage-basedCustomPer-call usage pricing for in-house teams.
Data handling. Client-side hashes and server-side text processing have different boundaries. Logging, storage and retention are endpoint-specific. See Privacy.