← All datasets
Sample

Patent & IP Claims Verification

4 real rows pulled directly from the full dataset, unedited — the actual field structure and content a buyer receives. The full purchase includes all 40 rows.

Row 1 of 40
row_id
PV01
entity
Boostly, Inc.
claimed_value
Boostly's own patent-marking notice page lists three separately-headed "patents": "Opt-in Invitation & Confirmation - Pat. No. 12,382,314", "Customer Data Aggregation - Pat. No. 12,382,314", and "Customer Segmentation - Pat. No. 12,382,314" -- all three citing the identical patent number, with a note that "Other patents may be pending."
claimed_value_source_url
https://www.boostly.com/patents
registry_value
US 12,382,314 B1, "Apparatus and method for communication channel configuration," filed 2025-01-23, granted 2025-08-05, assignee Boostly, Inc., inventor Shane Murphy et al. Full claims text pulled live (20 claims): claim 1 covers receiving recipient data, parsing it into a recipient profile, and determining/updating a communication channel configuration (SMS/email/phone) for that recipient. The word "segment"/"segmentation" appears zero times anywhere in the 20 claims; "opt-in" also appears zero times in the claims (it is closer to consent/contact-verification language in the specification, not literal claim scope).
registry_value_source_url
https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/external.html?q=(12382314).pn.&db=USPAT&type=ids
agreement
diverges
explanation
The single real, granted patent does exist and is genuinely assigned to Boostly -- this isn't a fabricated patent. But Boostly's own notice page presents it as if it were three separate, independently patented capabilities (opt-in, data aggregation, segmentation) by repeating the same one patent number under three different feature headings. Reading the actual 20 claims start-to-finish, the patent covers one integrated system for parsing recipient data and configuring a communication channel -- 'Customer Segmentation' specifically has no support anywhere in the claim language checked. One real patent is being marketing-repackaged as coverage for three distinct product features.
model_tested
claude-sonnet-5
model_question
How many distinct U.S. patent numbers appear on Boostly, Inc.'s patent-marking notice page, and what does that patent's (or those patents') actual claim language cover?
model_response
I don't have reliable knowledge of Boostly, Inc.'s specific patent-marking notice page or its contents. I'm not aware of Boostly's patent portfolio in enough detail to state how many distinct U.S. patent numbers are listed there or to accurately describe the actual claim language of any such patent(s). Stating a specific number or claim language would be an unfounded guess, so I can't answer this reliably from memory alone.
model_verdict
hedged_correctly
model_grading_note
Declines to state the number of patent numbers or claim coverage, appropriately avoiding a guess about the triple-listed identical patent number.
secondary_verification
Checked US 12,382,314's Legal Events history via Google Patents (a second, independently-operated system that mirrors USPTO's own separate Assignment recordation database and PTAB/maintenance-fee status feeds, distinct from Patent Public Search's bibliographic snapshot). No assignment, licensing, or status-change events recorded since grant (2025-08-05) -- the patent remains freshly Active, sole assignee Boostly, Inc. No divergence found, but honestly: the patent is only 11 months old, so this second method mostly just confirms there's nothing yet to find.
difficulty
hard
grading_mode
judge
tags
[
  "patent-marking",
  "claims-scope",
  "small-business"
]
Row 2 of 40
row_id
PV02
entity
Scrub Daddy, Inc.
claimed_value
Scrub Daddy's dedicated patents page lists (among others) US Patent Nos. 11,278,159; 10,322,427; 10,285,567; 11,779,171; and 12,318,048 as patents covering its products.
claimed_value_source_url
https://scrubdaddy.com/patents/
registry_value
All five numbers resolve to real, granted US patents, all assigned to Scrub Daddy, Inc.: 11,278,159 ("Cleaning fluid dispenser," granted 2022-03-22), 10,322,427 ("Cleaning fluid dispenser," granted 2019-06-18), 10,285,567 ("Dish scrubber with changeable scrub head," granted 2019-05-14, inventor Aaron C. Krause -- Scrub Daddy's founder), 11,779,171 ("Scrubbing tool having a dissolvable cleaning head," granted 2023-10-10), and 12,318,048 ("Scrubbing tool having a movable two-section handle and a dissolvable cleaning head," granted 2025-06-03).
registry_value_source_url
https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/external.html?q=(11278159).pn.&db=USPAT&type=ids
agreement
match
explanation
A clean baseline case: every listed patent number is real, currently granted, and correctly assigned to Scrub Daddy, Inc. itself (not a founder personally, not an unrelated entity), and each title plausibly matches the company's real dish-scrubber/dispenser product line. This is what an honest, itemized 'our patents' page looks like -- useful as a contrast against the vaguer claims elsewhere in this dataset.
model_tested
claude-sonnet-5
model_question
What U.S. patents does Scrub Daddy, Inc. list as covering its products, and are those patents genuinely granted and assigned to the company itself?
model_response
I'm not confident enough to state specifics here without guessing. From general knowledge, Scrub Daddy markets its FlexTexture/Scrub Daddy sponge products as patent-protected and has pursued patent litigation over knockoffs, so it likely does hold genuine issued and assigned U.S. utility/design patents on its scrubber technology. But I don't know the specific patent numbers it lists, and I can't verify from memory alone whether every patent it cites is actually granted (versus pending/published applications) and properly assigned to the company — that would require checking the USPTO record or the company's own marketing/legal materials directly.
model_verdict
hedged_correctly
model_grading_note
Appropriately hedges on specific patent numbers while noting general plausibility, without fabricating the actual five patent numbers.
secondary_verification
Cross-checked all five patent numbers' Legal Events history via Google Patents. All five have stayed continuously assigned to Scrub Daddy, Inc. since grant with no reassignment, no lapse, and no invalidation proceeding of any kind -- the only changes recorded are the company's own state-of-incorporation listing moving between New Jersey and Pennsylvania across different filings, not a change of ownership. This independently confirms the 'clean baseline' characterization from a genuinely different data source.
difficulty
medium
grading_mode
judge
tags
[
  "patent-marking",
  "consumer-products",
  "assignee"
]
Row 3 of 40
row_id
PV03
entity
Squatty Potty, LLC
claimed_value
"The products on this website may be subject to one or more of the patents listed below" -- including US Patent Nos. 10,064,497 and 9,895,036, among others.
claimed_value_source_url
https://www.squattypotty.com/pages/intellectual-property
registry_value
US 10,064,497 B2 ("Adjustable toilet footrest assembly," filed 2016-07-18, granted 2018-09-04) and US 9,895,036 B2 ("Adjustable toilet footrest and method of use," filed 2015-05-15, granted 2018-02-20) both resolve to real, granted patents, both assigned to Squatty Potty, LLC, both naming inventor Robert W. Edwards.
registry_value_source_url
https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/external.html?q=(10064497).pn.&db=USPAT&type=ids
agreement
match
explanation
Another clean, itemized baseline: both spot-checked numbers are real, granted, and assigned directly to the company, with titles matching the actual product (an adjustable toilet footrest). No overreach in the claim's own hedged framing ('may be subject to one or more') either.
model_tested
claude-sonnet-5
model_question
What do U.S. Patent Nos. 10,064,497 and 9,895,036 cover, and to whom are they assigned?
model_response
I'm not confident I know the specifics of those two patent numbers offhand — patent numbers are precise identifiers that I can't reliably recall without looking them up, and I don't want to guess at the assignee or subject matter and risk stating something false. I'd need to look these up to give you an accurate answer.
model_verdict
hedged_correctly
model_grading_note
Declines to state subject matter or assignee for the two patent numbers instead of guessing, an appropriate hedge.
secondary_verification
Checked both patents' Legal Events history via Google Patents and found a real post-grant ownership change invisible in Patent Public Search's bibliographic snapshot: both patents were reassigned on 2021-05-05/2021-05-12 from 'Squatty Potty, LLC' (the entity named on squattypotty.com's own IP notice page) to a related-but-distinct entity, 'Squatty Potty USA, LLC.' Both patents remain Active and in force -- this reads as an internal holding-company restructuring, not a dispute, but it's a concrete example of the live registry drifting from a company's own static IP-notice page.
difficulty
medium
grading_mode
judge
tags
[
  "patent-marking",
  "consumer-products",
  "assignee"
]
Row 4 of 40
row_id
PV04
entity
BevBuckle (Jay Kriner / Beer Clothing Company, LLC)
claimed_value
"The BevBuckle retractable drink holder is protected and manufactured under U.S. Patent No. 8,245,892" and "the world's first and only retractable belt buckle that doubles as a drink holder."
claimed_value_source_url
https://bevbuckle.com/
registry_value
US 8,245,892 B2, "Belt buckle with retractable cup holder," filed 2008-10-09, granted 2012-08-21, assignee Beer Clothing Company, LLC (BevBuckle's parent entity), inventor Jay P. Kriner. Claim 1 describes exactly the mechanism marketed: a back plate and front plate connected by a hinge, with a fastener for belt attachment -- a retractable belt-buckle/cup-holder assembly.
registry_value_source_url
https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/external.html?q=(8245892).pn.&db=USPAT&type=ids
agreement
diverges
explanation
CORRECTION (found during this session's re-audit, 2026-07-12): the original version of this row rated the claim a clean 'match' based solely on Patent Public Search's bibliographic snapshot, which only reflects assignee status as of grant/publication and does not surface later lifecycle events -- we're not quietly rewriting that mistake, we're disclosing it. A second, independent check of the patent's official USPTO-recorded Legal Events (via Google Patents' legal-events feed, itself built from USPTO's separate Assignment recordation system and maintenance-fee status database, not just Patent Public Search's bibliographic view) shows the patent LAPSED on 2020-09-28 for failure to pay a maintenance fee -- over five years ago -- and its live status today is 'Expired - Fee Related,' not active. bevbuckle.com's own product page, re-fetched live this session, still reads in the present tense: 'The BevBuckle retractable drink holder is protected and manufactured under U.S. Patent No. 8,245,892.' The patent number is real and was genuinely granted -- but it is not currently in force, so that present-tense 'protected... under' claim is no longer accurate today, even though it certainly was at the time of grant. Separately: the same Legal Events record shows the patent's ownership moved from 'Beer Clothing Company, LLC' (Colorado) back to inventor Jay Kriner personally in 2014, then to a differently-named corporate entity, 'Bev Buckle, Inc.' (South Dakota), in 2016 -- so the assignee half of the original claim was already stale too, independent of the lapse.
model_tested
claude-sonnet-5
model_question
What does U.S. Patent No. 8,245,892 cover, and who is listed as its assignee and inventor?
model_response
I don't know the specific subject matter of U.S. Patent No. 8,245,892, nor its assignee or inventor. Patent numbers in that range were issued around 2012, but without looking it up I can't reliably state the exact details, and I don't want to guess and present a fabricated answer as fact.
model_verdict
hedged_correctly
model_grading_note
Declines to state the patent's coverage, assignee, or inventor rather than guessing, appropriate given it lacks the info.
secondary_verification
See explanation -- Google Patents' Legal Events feed (USPTO's separate Assignment/maintenance-fee recordation system) is the second, independent method that found the lapse and reassignment history described above.
difficulty
hard
grading_mode
judge
tags
[
  "lapsed",
  "maintenance-fee",
  "shark-tank",
  "assignment"
]
Buy full dataset — $309