Observed records
What is in the records?
Filings, applicants, representatives and priority details supported by source records and their links.
Example: two representatives appearing in the same family
Behind the dataData & Methodology
From public records to
partner intelligence.
FlowIP connects applicants and representatives across patent and trademark filings to reveal patterns of international activity. Here is how those patterns are built, and what they can tell you.
Follow the recordsKRRecord A
Korean filing
Applicant: Company A
Representative: Firm A
Priority · publication number · filing date
USRecord B
US filing
Applicant: Company A
Representative: Firm B
Priority · publication number · filing date
Linked by priority / family
KRFirm A
USFirm B
1 familyBoth firms appear in the linked records.
This is evidence of participation, not proof of a referral or an instruction between them.
Network scope
- KoreaKR
- United StatesUS
- EuropeEP / EM
- JapanJP
- ChinaCN
Patent and trademark records use their own linking and interpretation rules.
01 / The process
From records to metrics
Select a stage to explore
Start with published records and specialist data feeds
We collect patent and trademark bibliographic and representative records from specialist data suppliers and public patent-office sources. Fields and publication schedules vary by source; not every filing includes the same information.
Sources include Lighthouse IP and public patent-office data. Official registers and firm websites help establish identities and profile information.
- Filing records
- Bibliographic data
- Representatives
Source coverage varies by field, office and period.
02 / Reading the data
Three layers of information
Calculated metrics
What patterns emerge?
Counts and distributions calculated from the linked records within a defined scope and period.
Example: sent and received family counts for a corridor
Estimated signals
Which candidates merit a closer look?
Signals that prioritize candidates using observed activity and fit. A recommendation does not predict or guarantee a future referral.
Example: partner fit or estimated influence on counsel selection
Count families, not documents
Several records can describe one underlying case.
A patent application, publication and grant in the same family count once within that reporting scope. Co-counsel relationships can appear separately, so adding up pair counts can overstate a corridor total.
- Korean application
- US publication
- US grant
1
family
Three documents do not mean three independent cases.
How should I read Sent and Received?
Read direction relative to the selected firm, jurisdiction, period and perspective. Sent describes activity on the origin side of linked filings; Received describes activity on the destination side. Filing-based and applicant-based perspectives can give different views, so compare like with like. These are observed filing patterns, not proof of who instructed foreign counsel.
03 / Coverage & quality
Accuracy is more than a single percentage.
Source completeness, organization matching and relationship evidence answer different questions. Read the reporting period, coverage and evidence alongside each metric.
What to keep in mind
- Source coverageAvailable records
Some documents have no representative field. For example, our commercial patent feed provides US attorney data on granted documents, while US pre-grant publications in that feed omit it. The feed alone can therefore understate US-side relationships.
- Organization identityMatching evidence
Spelling variants, name changes and the distinction between individuals and firms can introduce matching errors. Registers, addresses and aliases help resolve them, but not every name can be identified conclusively.
- Time & locationReference points
Publication and processing introduce delays. Map locations also vary in precision: a verified address, an approximate point and a regional location do not make the same claim. A marker is not always an exact office address.
Zero is not the same as unavailable.
An observed zero, an unresolved identity and a metric that has not been calculated are different states. A missing value does not establish a lack of activity.
Compare the same scope.
Use the same period, jurisdiction and counting unit. A decline in the most recent period may reflect publication delays rather than a change in activity.
Use patterns to build a shortlist.
Start with repeated participation and technology fit, then review individual records and current organization details before approaching a potential partner.
04 / Common questions
A few useful distinctions
Does a connection prove a referral or an instruction?
No. It shows representatives participating in linked international filings. The applicant may have appointed both independently. Public filing records do not establish referral arrangements, engagement terms or fees.
Is a representative’s current firm also their firm at the filing date?
Not necessarily. When a person is mapped to a firm using a current register, that mapping does not prove their historical affiliation. Read current profile information separately from the representative information on the filing record.
How should I interpret technology fields and client size?
Activity derived from patent IPC/CPC classifications and expertise declared on an official firm website are different kinds of evidence. A declared practice area alone does not establish prosecution experience. An unidentified trademark client size remains unknown; it should not be treated as an SME.
Are the figures a real-time view of the market?
No. Source publication, supplier delivery, extraction, validation and metric updates introduce delays. Unpublished filings are not visible. Source corrections and improvements to organization matching can change counts. A metric’s reporting period and a profile’s verification date may also differ.
Use the evidence to find your next partner.
Explore firms and their international activity, then review the records behind a promising connection.