A patent infringement allegation requires counsel to answer two related but analytically distinct sets of questions. First, who owns the asserted patent, what is known about the asserting entity, and is the matter part of a broader enforcement campaign? Second, how vulnerable are the asserted claims to validity challenges based on the prior art? The information needed to answer those questions has traditionally resided in separate systems, forcing practitioners to move between platforms at each stage of the analysis.

Join us on Wednesday, September 16, at 12 PM ET, for a conversation about how interoperability between litigation intelligence and prior art research platforms can create a more connected workflow. To accomplish this, a representative patent assertion will be followed from the initial investigation through prior art assessment and claim analysis.

Attendees will see how to use RPX Empower to evaluate patent ownership, entity relationships, enforcement history, the disposition of related matters, and other potentially relevant assets within the portfolio. The analysis will then move into Clerq, where practitioners can conduct AI-assisted prior art research and use automated workflows to investigate the asserted claims. The example will be led from a practitioner’s perspective, reflecting how outside counsel would approach an assertion in a live matter.

On the panel are Steve Chiang, Chief IP and SaaS Officer at RPX; Ricky Irizarry, Solutions Consultant at RPX; Stephanie Curcio, CEO and Co-Founder of Clerq; Michael Chernoff, Director of IP Strategy at Clerq; and Chris Johns, Partner at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP. They will walk through the connected workflow and discuss how interoperability may shape the future of patent litigation and post-grant analysis.

Panelists will also discuss the practical implications for early case assessment, litigation defense, licensing strategy, and potential post-grant challenges. The conversation will address why connected specialized platforms may be more useful than a single monolithic tool, and where AI agents can accelerate research without displacing attorney review and legal judgment.