Skip to main content
Glama

get_most_litigated_patents

Identify high-risk patents by finding those involved in the most litigation cases within a specific technology area using keywords or IPC classification.

Instructions

Identify the patents involved in the most litigation cases, indicating potential risk in a technology space. Returns the Top 10 patents by litigation count. Note: Search must contain either keywords or IPC. If both are provided, IPC is prioritized.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keywordsNoKeywords to search within patent title and abstract/summary. Supports AND, OR, NOT logic. Example: "mobile phone AND (screen OR battery)"
ipcNoPatent IPC classification code. Used to specify a particular technology field.
apply_start_timeNoPatent application start year (yyyy format). Filters by application filing date.
apply_end_timeNoPatent application end year (yyyy format). Filters by application filing date.
public_start_timeNoPatent publication start year (yyyy format). Filters by publication date.
public_end_timeNoPatent publication end year (yyyy format). Filters by publication date.
authorityNoPatent authority code (e.g., CN, US, EP, JP). Filters by patent office. Use OR for multiple, e.g., "US OR EP".

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'get_most_litigated_patents' tool. It constructs URL search parameters from the input arguments and delegates the API call to the shared 'callPatsnapApi' helper using the 'most-asserted' endpoint.
    async function getMostLitigatedPatents(args: BasePatentArgs): Promise<ServerResult> {
      const params = buildCommonSearchParams(args);
      // No 'lang' parameter for this endpoint
      return callPatsnapApi('most-asserted', params, 'get most litigated patents');
    }
  • Schema definition for the 'get_most_litigated_patents' tool within the ListTools response, including name, description, and reference to basePatentInputSchema.
      name: 'get_most_litigated_patents',
      description: 'Identify the patents involved in the most litigation cases, indicating potential risk in a technology space. Returns the Top 10 patents by litigation count. Note: Search must contain either keywords or IPC. If both are provided, IPC is prioritized.',
      inputSchema: basePatentInputSchema
    },
  • Shared basePatentInputSchema defining input properties for patent search tools like 'get_most_litigated_patents' (keywords, ipc, date filters, authority).
    const basePatentInputSchema = {
        type: 'object' as const, // Use 'as const' for stricter type checking
        properties: {
            keywords: { type: 'string', description: 'Keywords to search within patent title and abstract/summary. Supports AND, OR, NOT logic. Example: "mobile phone AND (screen OR battery)"' },
            ipc: { type: 'string', description: 'Patent IPC classification code. Used to specify a particular technology field.' },
            apply_start_time: { type: 'string', description: 'Patent application start year (yyyy format). Filters by application filing date.' },
            apply_end_time: { type: 'string', description: 'Patent application end year (yyyy format). Filters by application filing date.' },
            public_start_time: { type: 'string', description: 'Patent publication start year (yyyy format). Filters by publication date.' },
            public_end_time: { type: 'string', description: 'Patent publication end year (yyyy format). Filters by publication date.' },
            authority: { type: 'string', description: 'Patent authority code (e.g., CN, US, EP, JP). Filters by patent office. Use OR for multiple, e.g., "US OR EP".' }
        },
        // Add a note about requiring keywords or IPC for most tools
        description: "Requires either 'keywords' or 'ipc' to be specified for a meaningful search. If both are provided, IPC is prioritized by the API."
    };
  • src/index.ts:393-404 (registration)
    Registration of all tool handler functions in the toolImplementations map, including 'get_most_litigated_patents' mapped to its handler.
    const toolImplementations: Record<string, (args: any) => Promise<ServerResult>> = {
        'get_patent_trends': getPatentTrends,
        'get_word_cloud': getWordCloud,
        'get_wheel_of_innovation': getWheelOfInnovation,
        'get_top_authorities_of_origin': getTopAuthoritiesOfOrigin,
        'get_most_cited_patents': getMostCitedPatents,
        'get_top_inventors': getTopInventors,
        'get_top_assignees': getTopAssignees,
        'get_simple_legal_status': getSimpleLegalStatus,
        'get_most_litigated_patents': getMostLitigatedPatents,
        'get_portfolio_value_distribution': getPortfolioValueDistribution, // Add new tool here
    };
  • Core helper function that performs the actual PatSnap API call for insights endpoints, handles token auth, errors, and returns formatted ServerResult. Used by getMostLitigatedPatents.
    async function callPatsnapApi(endpoint: string, params: URLSearchParams, errorContext: string): Promise<ServerResult> {
        const token = await getAccessToken(); // Will use cached token if available and valid
        const url = `${PATSNAP_API_BASE_URL}/insights/${endpoint}?${params.toString()}`;
        console.log(`Calling PatSnap API: ${url}`); // Log the request URL (consider using a proper logger)
    
        let response: Response;
        try {
            response = await fetch(url, {
                method: 'GET',
                headers: {
                    // 'Content-Type': 'application/json', // Typically not needed for GET
                    'Authorization': `Bearer ${token}`
                }
                // Consider adding a timeout
                // signal: AbortSignal.timeout(15000) // e.g., 15 seconds timeout
            });
        } catch (error) {
            console.error(`Network error calling PatSnap API endpoint ${endpoint}:`, error);
            throw new McpError(503, `Network error connecting to PatSnap API (${endpoint}): ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}`);
        }
    
    
        if (!response.ok) {
            let errorText = `Status code ${response.status}`;
            try {
                errorText = await response.text();
            } catch (e) {
                console.error("Failed to read error response body:", e);
            }
            console.error(`API Error (${response.status}) for ${endpoint}: ${errorText}`); // Log error details
            // Invalidate cache on auth errors (401 Unauthorized, 403 Forbidden)
            if (response.status === 401 || response.status === 403) {
                 cachedToken = null;
                 console.log('Authentication error detected, clearing token cache.');
            }
            // Map common PatSnap error codes to potentially more user-friendly messages if desired
            // Example: if (errorText.includes("67200002")) { throw new McpError(429, "PatSnap API quota exceeded."); }
            throw new McpError(response.status, `Failed to ${errorContext}: ${errorText}`);
        }
    
        let json: PatsnapApiResponse; // Use interface type
        try {
            json = await response.json() as PatsnapApiResponse; // Type assertion
        } catch (error) {
            console.error(`Error parsing JSON response from ${endpoint}:`, error);
            throw new McpError(500, `Failed to parse JSON response from PatSnap API (${endpoint}): ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}`);
        }
    
        // Basic check for PatSnap's own error structure within a 200 OK response
        if (json && typeof json.status === 'boolean' && json.status === false && json.error_code !== 0) {
            console.error(`PatSnap API returned error within successful response for ${endpoint}: Code ${json.error_code}, Msg: ${json.error_msg}`);
            // You might want to map these internal errors to McpError as well
            throw new McpError(400, `PatSnap API Error (${json.error_code || 'N/A'}): ${json.error_msg || 'Unknown error'}`);
        }
    
        return {
            content: [
                {
                    type: 'text',
                    // Return the raw JSON response as text, formatted for readability
                    text: JSON.stringify(json, null, 2)
                }
            ]
        };
    }
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool returns Top 10 results by litigation count, and has specific parameter prioritization logic (IPC over keywords). However, it doesn't mention important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like (beyond 'Top 10 patents').

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is perfectly concise and well-structured: three sentences that each earn their place. The first states the purpose and output, the second explains the risk indication value, and the third provides crucial parameter guidance. No wasted words, and the most important information (purpose and parameter requirements) is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the core purpose and parameter requirements well, but doesn't address the output format details (what fields are returned, structure), authentication needs, or error conditions. For a tool with this complexity and no structured output documentation, more completeness would be helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by explaining the 'either keywords or IPC' requirement and prioritization rule, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Identify the patents involved in the most litigation cases, indicating potential risk in a technology space. Returns the Top 10 patents by litigation count.' It specifies the exact action (identify), resource (patents), scope (most litigated), and output format (Top 10 by count), distinguishing it from siblings like get_most_cited_patents or get_patent_trends.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Search must contain either keywords or IPC. If both are provided, IPC is prioritized.' This gives clear context for parameter requirements. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_most_cited_patents or get_patent_trends, which would be needed for a perfect score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/KunihiroS/patsnap-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server