Before you invest in tooling, place a purchase order or launch a private-label product, it is worth asking whether important product features may conflict with third-party patent rights in your intended markets.
ROBOMISE brings preliminary FTO and IP screening into the sourcing process. We identify potential issues, connect them with the actual product and supplier decision, and define where qualified legal review may be needed.
Start a Project →
A freedom to operate search looks for patent rights that may be relevant to making, importing or selling a product in a specific market. The useful starting point is not a product name alone. It is the product's technical features, intended configuration, target markets and planned commercial activity.
An initial screening can help a buyer find possible conflicts early and decide which questions require closer investigation. It does not prove that no relevant right exists, and it is not a formal freedom to operate opinion.
A supplier may show a patent certificate or a list of patent numbers. That evidence may be useful, but it does not automatically mean the product is safe to sell.
The patent may cover only one feature, a different model or a different country. It may belong to another company in the product chain. It may also protect the supplier's own invention without answering whether another party holds broader rights that matter in the buyer's market.
We therefore verify what the supplier's evidence relates to instead of treating the word “patented” as a conclusion.
When a potential issue appears early, the buyer may still be able to change a feature, choose another configuration, request better evidence, select a different supplier or obtain specialist advice before making a large commitment.
The same question becomes harder after tooling is complete, packaging is printed and stock is already moving towards the market. At that point, the commercial options are narrower and the cost of changing direction is higher.
We define the model, configuration, important technical functions and countries where the buyer plans to sell. Patent rights are territorial, so the market scope matters from the beginning.
We break the product into decision-relevant features. For outdoor robots and powered equipment, these may include navigation, boundary detection, charging, drive and cutting arrangements, cleaning systems, mechanical structures, control functions or accessories.
We search by technical concepts, classifications, companies, inventors and related patent families. We record documents that may deserve closer review and check the available status information for the relevant markets.
We review the patent numbers, ownership statements, licences or development explanations supplied for the product. The aim is to understand whether the evidence matches the company, model, feature and market being discussed.
FTO mainly concerns patent rights. Product appearance, branding or packaging may raise separate design-right or trademark questions. We flag these when they are relevant, but we do not present them as part of a patent conclusion.
Depending on the agreed scope, the work may include:
A clear record of the product, configuration, target markets, technical features and assumptions used for the screening.
A working list of patent documents and related status questions that may need attention. Inclusion in the list is a screening flag, not a conclusion that the product infringes.
A summary of what appears less concerning at the screening stage, what evidence is missing and what needs further investigation before the buyer commits.
When a question needs legal analysis, we organise the product facts, documents and open questions so that a qualified patent professional can review a defined issue rather than restart from an unclear product brief.
Deliverables are agreed for each project. Screening depth depends on the product, markets and information available.
Not every search result requires a legal opinion. Not every product can be cleared through a short screening either.
We first separate obvious mismatches, expired or irrelevant material and issues that need better product evidence from questions that may affect the commercial decision. Where claim interpretation, infringement, validity, ownership or licensing needs a legal conclusion, the work should move to a qualified patent attorney or other appropriate specialist.
A normal sourcing agent asks, “Can the factory make it?” ROBOMISE also asks, “What should the buyer verify before commercialising it?”
The answer may affect supplier selection, product configuration, tooling, launch markets, timing and negotiation. That is why we treat IP screening as part of a defined Sourcing Services process rather than as an isolated database search.
Compliance remains a separate question. A product can have suitable compliance documents and still raise patent concerns, or have no obvious patent flag and still fail its target-market requirements. See Compliance Support for the document and regulatory side of the decision.
It is particularly useful when:
Innovation-driven categories such as Outdoor Robotics often deserve earlier attention because a product may combine mechanical systems, electronics, software-controlled behaviour and visible design choices.
ROBOMISE is not a law firm. Our work is preliminary screening to support a sourcing and commercial decision. We do not provide formal legal opinions, claim-construction opinions, infringement or invalidity opinions, or guarantees of freedom to operate.
Search results depend on the agreed markets, product information, search scope, available databases and the publication status of patent documents. When a formal conclusion is required, the buyer should instruct a qualified patent professional in the relevant jurisdiction.
Tell us what the product is, which features matter, where you plan to sell it and how far the sourcing project has progressed. We will discuss whether preliminary screening fits the decision you are preparing to make.
