Introducing ClaimsEvidence: From Demand Letter to Defensible Negotiation Position

An SEP demand letter should be treated as a claim to be tested, not as proof of licensing liability. Before negotiating a FRAND license, an implementer – alleged infringer – should independelty assess the licensing demand and understand if there is technical ground for the demand. An prespective licensee cannot be penalised for independently assessing whether the asserted patents are essential, valid, relevant to its actual products, or commercially strong enough to justify the requested terms (Huawei v. ZTE (Case C-170/13, para. 69). ClaimsEvidence helps convert that pressure into an evidence-based negotiation position by combining SEP litigation judgment, claim-to-standard mapping, product-specific analysis and invalidity review. The result is not raw tool output. It is a defensible package that decision makers use to evaluate risk, prepare counter-arguments, and negotiate from evidence rather than information asymmetry.

The information imbalance is the real problem.

SEP licensing demands create an immediate asymmetry. The SEP owner arrives with an asserted portfolio, a royalty demand, selected claim charts, and a deadline. The implementer has weeks — sometimes days — to decide whether the patents are actually standard-essential, valid, relevant to its products, and commercially strong enough to justify the requested FRAND license terms.

That decision cannot be made from declaration data alone. A declared SEP may be non-essential, limited to an optional feature, outside the implementer's actual product use, vulnerable to invalidity attacks, or dependent on a claim construction that creates serious prior-art problems.

ClaimsEvidence helps implementers turn SEP licensing demands into evidence-based negotiation positions. We are not another AI platform that gives access to a tool. We provide evidence-as-a-service: you send us the demand letter, and we take care of the technical, legal, and strategic analysis required to respond.

Our approach has two distinguishing elements: experienced SEP litigators leading the strategy, and a specialized AI agent built for courtroom-level SEP analysis.

---

1. Expert-led SEP strategy

ClaimsEvidence is led by patent litigators with years of experience in SEP litigation, FRAND negotiation, in-house implementer work, and litigation law firms. SEP licensing is not only a technical mapping exercise — it is a negotiation under legal, commercial, and litigation pressure.

We do not stop at an initial analysis report. We support the implementer throughout the licensing negotiation and, where necessary, in preparation for potential litigation. The goal is to avoid litigation where possible, but the analysis is prepared from day one in a form that can support a defensible position if the dispute escalates.

This human layer is important for questions that go beyond AI output:

• How aggressive is the SEP owner likely to be?
• Is the asserted portfolio strong enough to justify the requested royalty?
• Should the implementer continue negotiating, make a counter-offer, challenge specific patents, or prepare for litigation?
• At what point is accepting the proposed license commercially preferable?

These are questions of SEP litigation experience, FRAND negotiation strategy, and knowledge of the key players in the SEP ecosystem.

Custom Product-specific analysis

A further part of our service is product-specific analysis product-specific SEP landscaping which can reveal why a 4G LTE SEP is not relevant to the implementer's specific product implementation and architecture.

In complex 3GPP standards such as 4G LTE and 5G NR, not every standardized feature is implemented by every device, chipset, product category, or network configuration. A patent may map to a standard feature in theory yet remain irrelevant to the client's actual implementation.

For this work, technically qualified patent litigators and patent attorneys work with the implementer's technical staff. This bridge between telecommunications engineering, patent law, and product implementation is essential for identifying non-use, optionality, implementation dependency, and product-specific non-essentiality arguments.

Pressure points, not brute force

We do not perform blind brute-force analysis as if every asserted patent were equally important. SEP portfolios have pressure points. Some patents carry more licensing and litigation weight than others.

We use internal portfolio-strength indicators and SEP litigation experience to identify the patents that matter most, then focus the defensive analysis on those patents. Challenging the assets most important to the SEP owner's position is what creates leverage and brings the SEP owner back to a realistic negotiation.

---

2. Litigation-grade AI analysis

ClaimsEvidence develops and uses a tailored AI agent built specifically for SEP litigation and FRAND defense. The agent is not a generic patent search tool and does not merely compare similar words between patent claims and standards documents. It reflects years of SEP litigation experience and follows the logic of how essentiality, validity, and claim construction are tested in real disputes.

Step 1 — Best-case mapping from the SEP owner's perspective

The agent first attempts to map the asserted patent claims onto the relevant standard as strongly as possible. An implementer cannot defeat an essentiality allegation without first understanding the best version of the SEP owner's case.

Step 2 — Challenge layer

That first analysis is then attacked by a separate review layer. The challenge layer tests the mapping against key disqualifiers:

• Whether the alleged standard feature is actually used by the implementer
• Whether the claim language supports the proposed essentiality reading
• Whether the patent's own teaching is consistent with the relevant specification
• Whether the feature is mandatory or optional
• Whether the claim construction required for essentiality is legally sustainable

Step 3 — Invalidity grounded in the standardization record

In SEP cases, highly relevant prior art is often found in the standardization record itself. ClaimsEvidence evaluates standardization submissions, working-group documents, technical contributions, meeting materials, change requests, draft specifications, and related materials from the relevant standard-setting process. For 3GPP-related matters, this can include documents from the relevant radio access, core network, service, and working-group meetings.

The agent also analyzes file-wrapper estoppel, prosecution history, amendments, limiting statements, and priority claims. If the asserted priority claim can be challenged, the available prior-art window may expand — bringing later standardization submissions, technical proposals, and patent publications into scope.

The squeeze

The key advantage is that ClaimsEvidence does not treat essentiality, invalidity, and claim construction as separate workstreams. We put them in relation to identify the strongest litigation squeeze.

If the SEP owner needs a broad claim construction to read the patent onto the standard, that breadth may create invalidity risk. If the SEP owner narrows the claim to avoid prior art, the patent may no longer be essential — or may fall outside the implementer's actual use. This broad-claim-invalidity vs. narrow-claim-non-essentiality squeeze is often where the strongest defensive position emerges.

---

What the implementer receives

ClaimsEvidence delivers a practical SEP defense package, not raw tool output. Depending on the matter, this may include:

• Triage of the demand letter and asserted portfolio
• Patent-by-patent essentiality analysis
• Product-specific SEP landscape mapping — for 4G LTE portfolios in particular, product-specific landscaping can become an early triage layer for non-essentiality and non-use arguments
• Prioritization of the patents that matter most
• Non-essentiality and non-use arguments
• Invalidity and priority analysis
• File-wrapper and prosecution history review
• Claim charts against standards such as 3GPP TS/TR documents
• Negotiation strategy for the FRAND discussion
• Continued support during the licensing negotiation

The result is a compact, evidence-based position that decision makers can use for internal risk assessment, FRAND negotiation, counter-offers, escalation planning, and — if unavoidable — litigation preparation.

---

Fair licensing starts with evidence

SEP implementers should not have to negotiate blind. A licensing demand should be tested against the patents, the standard, the prosecution history, the prior art, and the implementer's actual product use.

ClaimsEvidence combines experienced SEP litigators, technically qualified patent professionals, and specialized AI to deliver that analysis as a service.

You send us the demand letter. We take care of the rest.

---

Next Steps

If you've received an SEP demand letter and want a confidential second opinion, we run private working sessions for in-house IP teams and their counsel.

Request a private session