SEPTEMBER 2026 RELEASE · FREEDOM TO OPERATE
The Freedom to Operate Analysis skill reads a product’s drawings and description, breaks the product into its elements, searches granted patents for each one, in the U.S., Europe, China, Japan and Korea, and checks their in-force status. JR3 charts every element red, orange or green with its reasoning, drafts the opinion as a Word document for attorney review, then helps you finish it in Word.
U.S., European, Chinese, Japanese and Korean patents, each checked for in-force status. Expiry is computed, and fee status is flagged for counsel to confirm before a patent is relied on.
Hits are mapped limitation by limitation under the all-elements rule, not by keyword overlap.
Each hit and each on-target clear links to the claim language and the product evidence behind it.
JR3 does the first pass and drafts the opinion. Counsel reviews it, decides what stays, and signs.
How it works
Two stages and eight numbered steps, each with its own section below.
01–05 · In Universe
From the drawings to an element-by-element chart with its evidence, then a draft opinion as a .docx.
Steps 01–05 ↓06–08 · In Microsoft Word
Where counsel reviews, comments on and revises the draft, with JR3 in the task pane.
Steps 06–08 ↓In Universe
The Freedom to Operate Analysis skill builds the chart; a workflow skill drafts the opinion from it.
01 · Upload · Skills Library
Drop the product’s drawings and specification onto the JR3 Home screen. There is no matter setup and no intake form. Then choose Freedom to Operate Analysis from the Skills Library, and JR3 sets up the FTO analysis.
02 · JR3 · Deconstruct · Search
JR3 reads the drawings and the specification, breaks the product into its elements, and ties each one to a figure, its reference numerals and a claim clause. It then searches granted patents element by element in the jurisdictions you choose (U.S., Europe, China, Japan, Korea) and works out each analyzed patent’s expiry before it reaches the chart, flagging any maintenance fee it could not confirm.
Demo matter (a U.S. search): about 290 candidates screened, 25 analyzed claim by claim, 2 excluded as lapsed for unpaid maintenance fees (confirmed from the USPTO fee record), and 23 charted as in force, or presumed in force where a fee payment could not be confirmed. Three related in-force patents were identified for follow-up charting. Elements were taken from the WR-52’s claim 1; features outside them were not separately searched. Search current as of September 28, 2026. Illustrative content, not a customer result.
03 · Universal Chart · FTO claim chart
JR3 builds a custom Universal Chart: product elements down the side, patents in force, or presumed in force, across the top. Each cell is rated against the all-elements rule, so red means every limitation of a claim reads on the product, not that two documents share keywords.
04 · Cell inspector · Evidence
Open a hit to see why it was rated. The inspector shows the mapping strength and the cited sources, and on a direct hit the evidence view sets the verified claim quote beside the WR-52’s specification. The full-context view reads the claim limitation by limitation against the product. A possible hit names the construction question or product fact that would decide it.
05 · Workflow Skills · Opinion
Run the FTO opinion workflow from Workflow Skills on the finished chart. JR3 asks which template to start from (in the demo, Junior’s default FTO opinion), then saves the draft .docx to the matter, marked as a draft for attorney review.
In Microsoft Word · The JR3 add-in
The draft leaves Universe as a .docx, so the review happens where counsel already works: in Microsoft Word, with the JR3 add-in in the task pane. It works on the opinion section by section, and nothing is written into it until the attorney accepts.
06 · Document type · Unified Drafting
Open the draft in Microsoft Word. The JR3 task pane recognizes it and offers the Freedom to Operate Opinion document type, with 6 of 6 sections found, for you to confirm. Unified Drafting then lists every section: click one to jump straight to it, or double-click to select the whole section.
07 · Skills · Explain · Comment
Run Explain on a section and pick the reader, such as the client’s in-house counsel. JR3 answers on cards: main points, key issues, risks, advantages, a plain-language version and what to check next. Locate selects the passage a card is about, and a native Word comment, authored as you, flags what still needs a human look.
In the demo, the comment asks counsel to confirm two maintenance-fee payments before relying on one direct hit. Illustrative content, not a customer result.
08 · Chat · Injectable edits · Track Changes
Ask for revisions in plain English. JR3 answers with injectable edits anchored to the paragraphs they change: a replacement shows a Track Changes preview, and an insertion shows the text it will add. With Track Changes on in Word, every edit you accept lands as a native tracked change. Rejected edits are never written, and you can record why.
In the demo, the attorney accepts tighter risk language and concrete design-around options for the three direct hits, and rejects an edit that overstated certainty in the Conclusion.
Government work · 28 U.S.C. § 1498
Government work changes the remedy, not the need for an FTO analysis. When a contractor makes or uses a patented invention for the United States with the Government’s authorization or consent, 28 U.S.C. § 1498 limits the patent owner to compensation from the United States in the Court of Federal Claims, with no injunction. A contractor sued for that work raises § 1498 as an affirmative defense. In the demo, the draft opinion’s Legal Framework flags these considerations for the program team, including what § 1498 leaves exposed.
Demo matter: the WRYNECK WR-52, a fictional Group 3 tactical VTOL drone from a fictional client, Aldermoor Aerosystems, Inc. How § 1498 applies to a specific contract is a question for counsel. Check export-control (ITAR/EAR) and CUI requirements before uploading a program’s technical data.
JR3 does the reading. Counsel makes the call.
Questions
How the skill scopes the search, and what it leaves to the attorney.
Granted patents only, checked for status. The skill searches granted patents in the U.S., Europe, China, Japan and Korea; pending applications and expired patents are not charted. For each patent it analyzes, JR3 computes expiry (for U.S. patents, from the term, patent term adjustment and terminal disclaimers) and flags whether the maintenance-fee or renewal record could be confirmed. U.S. maintenance fees fall due 3½, 7½ and 11½ years after grant, each with a six-month grace period.
Where a payment can’t be confirmed, the patent stays on the chart as presumed in force, and its cell says so, for counsel to check before relying on it. A lapse is not always final: a patent can be revived on petition (35 U.S.C. § 41(c)(1)), and § 41(c)(2) intervening rights may protect work done during the lapse.
Published applications aren’t enforceable yet, so they aren’t charted; counsel should track them as watch items. They still matter: if a patent later issues with substantially identical claims, the owner can seek a reasonable royalty back to publication from anyone who had actual notice (35 U.S.C. § 154(d)).
Most applications publish 18 months after their priority date, so the newest filings can’t be found by any search. An FTO analysis is a snapshot in time. Re-run it when the product or the patent landscape changes.
No. JR3 produces a first pass and a draft for attorney review: the element breakdown, the search, the chart and a draft opinion. Claim construction, equivalents, validity, the final risk calls and the signed opinion stay with counsel.
JR3 · Freedom to Operate
Bring drawings and a product description (non-controlled data only). We’ll run it live, from the element breakdown to a draft opinion in Word.
The basics
An FTO analysis answers a practical question: can a company make, use, sell, offer to sell or import a specific product in a specific country without infringing a third party’s patent claims that are still in force there? It pairs a search of granted, in-force patents with a claim-by-claim comparison, and it often ends in a written opinion from patent counsel.
The legal test is the all-elements rule. A claim is infringed only if the product meets every one of its limitations, literally or by an equivalent. Owning a patent of your own doesn’t settle the question, because a patent is a right to exclude others, not a right to practice.
The stakes are lopsided. Median litigation costs through trial run from about $600,000 to $3.6 million, depending on what is at stake, and a court can enhance damages up to three times in egregious cases, typically willful infringement (35 U.S.C. § 284; Halo). Failing to get an opinion can’t be used to prove willfulness (§ 298), but a timely, competent opinion of counsel is evidence of good faith.
Patentability search
Can we patent it?
Looks at all prior art, anywhere: patents, applications, expired patents and non-patent literature.
Freedom to operate
Can we make and sell this product here?
Centers on the claims of granted, in-force patents where the product is made, used, sold or imported, with published applications tracked as watch items.
Invalidity search
Is that patent valid?
Looks for prior art dated before a blocking patent’s priority date, usually once a patent has been flagged.
Hits in an FTO analysis are potentially blocking patents. Prior art mostly matters when counsel tests a blocking patent’s validity.
When teams commission one
Most of an FTO analysis is reading: breaking the product down and, above all, screening candidates and reading their claims limitation by limitation. That first pass is what JR3 takes on, so counsel’s hours go to checking it, then to claim construction, equivalents, validity and the opinion itself.
Demonstration using a hypothetical product. Patent data from USPTO records; the analysis is illustrative and not legal advice. The WRYNECK WR-52, Aldermoor Aerosystems, Inc. and Ravensworth Keane LLP are fictional. Patents and owners shown are real U.S. records. Ratings describe only the fictional WR-52 and are not legal conclusions about any real product or about the infringement, validity or enforceability of any patent. Status reflects USPTO records as of September 28, 2026.