How Lumenci tested five SEO platforms and told the client which one to license first
A patent that reads on several targets is only useful if you know which read is strongest. Lumenci tested each platform live and ranked them by the evidence, not the guess.
.webp "Feature images - 2026-05-07T163421.509 (convert.io)")
Case at a Glance
Domain
Service
Client
Result
Every target ranked by how strong the evidence against it was, so the client knew which one to approach first.
Your patent reads on five products. Four of those cases are weaker than the fifth, and you cannot tell which is which.
What most teams do.
What Lumenci did instead.
Tested every platform live, captured the evidence, and ranked the five by how strong the infringement read actually was.
Why it mattered.
How It Was Done
Lumenci ran the assessment as the client's technical team, staffed with analysts who understand search intent and SEO systems and who know what a claim chart has to survive when a licensee's counsel reads it.
The asserted patent covered AI-driven search intent analysis, so the work began with what the claims actually required: intent classification, keyword intelligence, and AI-powered analytics behaviour.
Each target platform's public technical material was worked through to establish what could be shown from documentation alone, and where testing would be needed to close the gap.
The platforms were tested directly to observe the claimed behaviour in operation, with screenshots and technical evidence captured for each feature that mapped to a claim.
The targets were compared on the quality of evidence available for each, and ranked so the client could see which reads were strongest and which were weaker.
The findings were built into claim charts documenting each infringement read against the captured evidence, ready for licensing or enforcement use.
What Changed for the Client
Where they stood.
Claim charts across several SEO platforms, each backed by tested evidence rather than documentation alone
What Lumenci established.
Which targets carried the strongest infringement reads, and which were weaker, so the licensing sequence was set by evidence
Where it stands.
The client is running its licensing outreach off the ranked evidence, strongest target first.
Here's what the client had to Say
The deliverables were not simply claim charts. They included methodical technical investigation that tested my patent against publicly available evidence, documented each finding, and clearly explained the basis for every conclusion.
Product testing and claim charting for monetization
1200+ Products Tested
150+ Multidisciplinary Experts
100K+ Patents Analyzed
What This Would Look Like for Your Matter
A scoping conversation covers the patent, the products you believe read on it, whether the claimed behaviour can be observed through testing, and your licensing timeline. You get a view of which targets are worth leading with before committing to a full programme.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a patent's infringement read be tested on a live software product?
Yes, where the claimed behaviour is observable in operation. Many software features leave evidence in what the product does and returns, which can be captured and documented even when the implementation itself is not public.
Why rank licensing targets instead of charting all of them equally?
Because not all reads are equally strong, and a licensing programme that leads with its weakest target invites a fight it might lose. Ranking by evidence lets the client open with the position most likely to convert.
What does live testing add to a claim chart built from documentation?
Documentation tells you what a product claims to do. Testing shows what it actually does. For a licensing or enforcement chart, evidence of observed behaviour is materially stronger than a citation to a marketing page.
How does this support a licensing negotiation?
A licensee's counsel will pressure-test every read. A chart backed by captured evidence of the product's own behaviour is far harder to wave away than one built on inference, which changes the tenor of the conversation.
Is product testing available separately from claim charting?
Yes. Product testing is often the step that turns a weak documentation-based read into a defensible one, whether or not full charts follow.
Can Lumenci support enforcement if licensing does not succeed?
Yes. The tested evidence and charts that support a licensing approach are the same technical record an enforcement action rests on, which is why both sit within one IP litigation support practice.