¶¶Òõ³ÉÄê

In legal work, the stakes are simplyÌýtooÌýhighÌýfor approximation. Legal professionals are accountableÌýfor theirÌýoutputs; errors carry real consequences, and beingÌýalmost rightÌýis not good enough.ÌýÌý

Nowhere is that truer than in Section 101 patent eligibility, one of the most consequential and frustrating challenges in patent practice today, and the problem that brought and ¶¶Òõ³ÉÄê together to build something new inside CoCounsel Legal.Ìý

WhyÌýSectionÌý101? Why Now?Ìý

Section 101 patent eligibility is a question at the center of mostÌýutilityÌýpatent disputes today. It is often a decisive factor in patent litigation, and one of the quickest ways to win or lose a case. The legal test asks whether aÌýtechnicalÌýinvention is the kind of subject matter the patent system protects, meaning it must be more than a general idea and mustÌýrepresentÌýa concrete, technical improvement.Ìý

ÌýIn theory, the framework is clear. In practice, it is anything but:Ìý

• Key concepts lack precise definitions, leavingÌýwideÌýroomÌýfor interpretation.ÌýÌý
• The analysis is deeply precedent-dependent, andÌýoutcomes hinge on finding the right prior cases among hundreds of fact-specificÌýdecisions.ÌýMissing a key precedent can mean the difference betweenÌýa strong argumentÌýand a weak one.Ìý

And all of this unfolds under constant pressure. Clients need answersÌýfast;Ìýmatters are often fixed-fee, and the uncertainty is genuinely difficult to explain.Ìý

For patent owners seeking to assert a patent, understanding its vulnerability under Section 101 is essential before litigation begins.ÌýFor defendants, a fast, reliable eligibility assessment can reveal a path to an early win.ÌýFor both sides, the current reality often looks the same: assign aÌýjunior associate to research similar cases, spend hours or sometimes days finding the right precedents, and still wonder whether something important was missed.Ìý

This is the kind of problem that demands a fiduciary-grade solution:Ìýone built notÌýfor the average task, butÌýfor the specific, high-stakes reality of patent practice.Ìý

Unmatched IP Expertise, Delivered at ScaleÌý

TheÌýPatent Claim Eligibility AnalyzerÌýwas not built by technologists who then consulted practitioners. It was built with practitioners at the center of every decision — and with a caliber of technicalÌýexpertiseÌýon both sides that distinction shapes everything about what theÌýPatent Claim Eligibility AnalyzerÌýcan do.Ìý

¶¶Òõ³ÉÄê engaged Sterne Kessler through aÌýforward deployed engineering motion, a model that pairs engineers who combine strong legal backgrounds with deep AI and technicalÌýexpertiseÌýandÌýembeds them directly alongside practitioners.ÌýThe ThomsonÌýReutersÌýengineering team worked side by side with Sterne Kessler’s IP litigators to deeply understand their workflows, co-build the solution in rapid iterations, and move withÌýspeed and flexibility.ÌýÌý

The result is aÌýtoolÌýshaped by the kind of tight, trust-based collaboration that only happens when both sides bring genuine depth to the table.Ìý

Sterne Kessler brings decades of litigation-tested intellectual propertyÌýexpertiseÌýto this partnership. The firm worked alongside ¶¶Òõ³ÉÄê’ engineers and editorial teams to translate the way experienced IPÌýpractitionersÌýapproach Section 101 — their analytical frameworks, their precedent instincts, their litigation-proven methodologies — into a repeatable, scalable workflow now insideÌýCoCounselÌýLegal.Ìý

That meant curatingÌýan initialÌýcorpus of approximately 200 highly relevant Federal Circuit Section 101Ìýdecisions,Ìýcases selected not by keyword, but by their factual and analytical relevance to the kinds of claims practitionersÌýencounterÌýin real matters. ¶¶Òõ³ÉÄê editorial teams then reviewed and augmented that corpus, applying the same editorial rigor that underpins Westlaw.Ìý

The result is a workflow grounded in practitioner intelligence, trusted legal content,Ìýand engineeringÌý— combined at a depth that general-purpose AIÌýtools simply cannot replicate.Ìý

BuiltÌýfor Real IP Work

TheÌýPatent Claim Eligibility AnalyzerÌýreflects how IP work isÌýactually done.

How theÌýPatent Claim Eligibility AnalyzerÌýWorks

1. Enter a patent claim: Select theÌýPatent Claim Eligibility Analyzer inÌýCoCounselÌýLegal and paste a claim directly into the chat.
2. CoCounsel applies the same Step 1 / Step 2 logic that courts use:ÌýTheÌýPatent Claim Eligibility AnalyzerÌýstructures the analysis the way judges do, first asking whether the claim is directed to a general or abstract idea, then whether it adds a meaningful technical improvement.
3. CoCounsel finds the most relevant court decisions for that specific claim: Using semantic analysis rather than keyword search,ÌýtheÌýPatent Claim Eligibility AnalyzerÌýmatches the claim to prior Section 101 cases with similar fact patterns, so practitioners surface the right cases, not just the mostÌýfrequentlyÌýcited ones.
4. It draws from a curated corpus built by Sterne Kessler and ¶¶Òõ³ÉÄê editors: The workflow leverages an initial set of approximately 200 highly relevant Section 101 cases, curated by Sterne Kessler and reviewed and augmented by ¶¶Òõ³ÉÄê editorial teams.
5. It explains why each cited case matters: Rather than listing citations, CoCounsel provides reasoning that connects the claim’s language to the reasoning and outcomes in those cases, giving practitioners a litigation-ready foundation, not just a list of results.
6. Citations link directly to Westlaw: Every source is verifiable. Practitioners can validate citations and continue deeper research as needed, maintaining full accountability for the final work product.

TheÌýPatent Claim Eligibility AnalyzerÌýsurfaces both binding and persuasive authority when factually relevant, reflecting how Section 101 arguments areÌýactually madeÌýin practice.ÌýThe goal is not to replace attorney judgment. It is to give attorneys a faster, more consistent, more defensible foundation from which to exercise it, so less time is spent on the researchÌýphaseÌýand more time is spent on strategy, client counsel, and the work that requires humanÌýexpertise.Ìý

For patent owners, that means a stronger, faster assessment of a patent’s eligibility risk before litigation begins.ÌýFor defendants, it means a rapid, precedent-backed read on Section 101 positions from the outset of a case.Ìý

For both, it means a head start on brief writing, a more consistent work product across matters and experience levels, and greater confidence that no key precedent has been missed.Ìý

A New ModelÌýfor Legal Product InnovationÌý

Beyond theÌýPatent Claim Eligibility AnalyzerÌýitself, this partnershipÌýrepresentsÌýsomething worth examining at a higher level: a fundamentally different model for how legal AI products can and should be built.Ìý

WhileÌýbuilding useful legal technology has always required thinking like a lawyer,Ìýthe traditional approach to legal technology developmentÌýacross the industryÌýfollows a familiar pattern. TechnologistsÌýidentifyÌýa problem, build a solution, and bring it toÌýmarket. Practitioners are consultedÌýbut they areÌýlargely recipientsÌýof the finished product.ÌýExpertiseÌýflows in one direction.Ìý

This partnership inverts that model. Sterne Kessler did not simply advise on theÌýPatent Claim Eligibility Analyzer, they co-developed it, inspired by the firm’s practical methodologies for Section 101.

What began as a co-development initiative has evolved into a scalable market offering available to patent practitioners across CoCounsel Legal. In doing so, it has demonstrated what is possible when practitioners and technologists collaborate.Ìý

That model also opens new possibilitiesÌýfor how law firms think about their ownÌýexpertise. Firms areÌýevolvingÌýthe ways they create value from their knowledge, and this partnership is an example of what it looks like when a firm’s internal intelligence becomes a repeatable, scalable offering.Ìý

CoCounselÌýLegal’s architectureÌýisÌýdesigned to enable exactly this kind ofÌýforward-deployed, domain-specific innovation, making it possible to translate specializedÌýexpertiseÌýinto scalable, trusted AI experiences. TheÌýPatent Claim Eligibility AnalyzerÌýis the first proof point.Ìý

Additional co-developed workflows are already in development, with the ambition of bringing the same practitioner-built, precedent-grounded approach to other complex areas of patent law, signaling what is possible across specialized legal domains where expertise is the differentiator and where the stakes areÌýtooÌýhighÌýfor approximation.Ìý

The Standard the Profession DeservesÌý

What makes theÌýPatent Claim Eligibility AnalyzerÌýmeaningful is not just what it does. It is the standard it was built to. Every output is grounded in a curated, editorially reviewed body of case law. Every citation links to a verifiable Westlaw source.ÌýThe analytical structure mirrors the reasoning courtsÌýactually apply.ÌýAnd the workflow is explicitly designed to support attorney judgment, not substitute for it.Ìý

That isÌýfiduciary-grade AI. It isÌýnot a general-purposeÌýtoolÌýadaptedÌýfor legal work, but a purpose-built solution grounded in authoritative content, shaped by theÌýexpertiseÌýof practitioners whoÌýperformÌýthis work at the highest level, and accountable to the professional standards that patent practice demands.Ìý

The ¶¶Òõ³ÉÄê and Sterne Kessler partnership was built on that standard. And as the collaboration deepens and expands, it is the standard weÌýwillÌýkeep.Ìý