Eyeing Patent Market, Casetext Moves to Expand Its CARA Research Platform
Casetext is joining a growing field of legal tech solutions arming patent litigators with AI and automation to quickly review patent matters.
October 23, 2019 at 09:00 AM
4 minute read
Legal research platform Casetext Inc. is entering the patent space with its latest product, CARA Patent, scheduled for release in early 2020.
CARA Patent is the latest expansion from Casetext, which launched in 2013 as a legal research tool to search documents online, after securing early backing from the Y Combinator. In 2016 Casetext released the CARA (Case Analysis Research Assistant) platform, which leverages artificial intelligence to find cases that are relevant to briefs.
After raising $12 million in March 2017, the company also released CARA Brief Finder, a companion platform that allows CARA users to place and research briefs, memos and other legal documents into its system.
Now, the young company is shifting its tech abilities into researching litigators' patent-related matters.
What it is: CARA Patent is a platform to help lawyers find the most relevant opinions, decisions and related IP connected to their patent.
With the drag and drop of a Microsoft Word document and PDF file into CARA Patent, the software analyzes the document's citations and key terms, and co-references those with district court motions and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) opinions, explained Casetext co-founder and chief product officer Pablo Arredondo, who was formerly an IP litigator at Kirkland & Ellis.
CARA Patent can shorten the time it takes to research relevant decisions related to the patent or similar patents, Arredondo said. In a demo shown to Legaltech News, a query can net 1,000 search results, but Arredondo noted the results can be filtered by motion type, cause of action and various parameters, including claim construction, a process unique to the patent world.
Under the hood: CARA Patent leverages artificial intelligence, specifically natural language processing, to review statutes and cases to catch the subtle connections between words and phrases.
CARA Patent is the first practice-specific solution under the CARA brand. Casetext began working on a patent-specific upgrade after realizing that clients were using CARA specifically for patents, Arredondo said.
He added that CARA Patent now allows these clients to analyze how patents cite to other patents and cases, a feature not currently offered in CARA.
Competition: CARA joins a growing number of legal tech solutions that have been developed to automate and streamline some of the patent practice's complexity. From TurboPatent's RoboReview "bot" that edits and flags any formatting and concept errors, to InnVenn leveraging Venn diagrams to narrow the process of finding relevant patent results, entities have attempted to translate and streamline the dizzying patent process over the past few years.
Most recently, Similari also launched a patent search program, that leverages natural language processing to search published patents, similar to CARA Patent.
However, Arredondo said CARA Patent differs from the competition because most patent tools are built for surviving the "trenches" of litigation. "Once you actually declare litigation, this is where we help you win the litigation."
He explained that CARA Patent provides the patent-specific decisions and research needed to successfully litigate their patent, not just file a patent.
Arredondo also noted although Westlaw and ROSS's EVA offer similar "drag and drop" techniques for researching legal briefs that contain citations, CARA Patent is the only platform that allows users to search a patent.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
