Every claim, screened against the doctrine that decides it.
Every drafted claim is screened against G 2/21 plausibility, Amgen §112 enablement, USPTO Inventorship Nov 2025, UPC CoA 528/2024, and In re Cellect — sixty-nine documented failure modes neutralised by construction.
Sixty-nine failure modes. Ten categories. One screening pass.
69 failure modes, 10 categories
Substantive validity §112, priority, public disclosure, inventorship, procedural, prosecution, post-grant, antitrust, trade secret, edge cases — each with its parade.
12 anti-circumvention tactics
Drafting moves that pre-empt design-around: bioisostere coverage in Definitions, Markush + DOE preserved, sub-genus exclusions, range cascades.
Cascade-4-couches architecture
Layer 1 narrow picture-claim → Layer 4 broad genus. Severability between layers — one failure does not invalidate the others.
Deposit-ready exports
INPI provisoire, EPO European patent, USPTO non-provisional / PCT — template-filled with the hardened cascade.
Draft in. Hardened cascade out.
- 01
Input draft claim
Either the optimal wording from the Claim Interpretation Lattice, or a CPI-drafted claim pasted directly.
- 02
Screen against 69 failure modes
Each mode has its source jurisprudence and its parade — every claim feature is checked against every applicable mode.
- 03
Harden the cascade
Synthesise a 4-layer cascade with the parades inlined: enablement paths, plausibility statements, ODP×PTA terminal disclaimers.
- 04
Output deposit-ready application
PROV INPI or full application with claim cascade + spec + checklist — ready for CPI countersignature and filing.
Category A — Substantive validity (13 modes).
Excerpt from the master playbook §0.2. The full cartography spans 10 categories. Each row is a screened-and-paraded mode in the deposit template.
| # | Failure | Source jurisprudence | Parade |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | §112 / Art. 83 CBE — défaut de suffisance | Amgen v. Sanofi (598 U.S. 594, 2023) | Cascade 4 couches + 3 paths to enablement |
| 02 | Lack of written description | Ariad v. Eli Lilly (598 F.3d 1336, Fed. Cir. 2010) | Embodiments représentatifs explicites |
| 03 | Indefiniteness §112(b) | Nautilus v. Biosig (572 U.S. 898, 2014) | Definitions section + ranges chiffrées |
| 04 | Obviousness §103 / Art. 56 CBE | KSR v. Teleflex (550 U.S. 398, 2007) | Negative space + unexpected results |
| 05 | Inherency anticipation | Schering v. Geneva (339 F.3d 1373, Fed. Cir. 2003) | Identification explicite paramètres non triviaux |
| 06 | Anticipation par produit naturel (eligibility §101) | Myriad (569 U.S. 576, 2013) | Claim sur composition / forme isolée modifiée |
| 07 | Patent eligibility §101 (Mayo / Alice — IA) | Mayo (566 U.S. 66, 2012); Alice (573 U.S. 208, 2014) | Claim 18 ancré dans effet physique concret |
| 08 | Plausibility / lack of technical effect | G 2/21 (EBA EPO, 23 March 2023) | Field + Summary déclarent TOUS les effets |
| 09 | Lack of unity (Art. 82 CBE, Rule 13 PCT) | EPO Rule 44 PCT | Single inventive concept par umbrella |
| 10 | Lack of industrial applicability | Art. 57 CBE | Statement Industrial Application explicite |
| 11 | Method of treatment exclusion | Art. 53(c) CBE + G 2/08 (19 Feb. 2010) | Claim 8 marqué US-only / Claim 9 EP-compat |
| 12 | Lack of novelty / anticipation | Art. 54 CBE / 35 USC §102 | OPSEC + Background neutre |
| 13 | Non-reproducible prior art | G 1/23 (EBA EPO, July 2025) | Awareness FTO + product-on-market analysis |
Cartography sourced from the IPZilla master playbook (§0.2). View full doctrine
Last gate before deposit.
Receives the optimised claims from the Claim Interpretation Lattice; ships them — hardened — to INPI / EPO / USPTO deposit.
File hardened, or don't file.
Sixty-nine failure modes neutralised by construction. The doctrine is already in your draft.