---

name: patent-infringement-analysis language: en description: Generates a structured patent infringement analysis mapping claims to accused product features via claim charts. Covers Phillips claim construction, literal infringement, doctrine of equivalents, validity defenses, damages, and strategic recommendations. Use when analyzing patent infringement, preparing claim charts, evaluating IP litigation risk, or assessing licensing and design-around options.

Patent Infringement Analysis

Produces a report evaluating whether an accused product or process infringes asserted patent claims, for litigation counsel, in-house teams, or technical experts.

Prerequisites

Gather before starting:

1. Asserted patent(s) — specification, claims, file history, prosecution docs, amendments, office action responses
2. Accused product/process — specs, manuals, marketing materials, drawings, schematics, source code, reverse engineering reports
3. Prior art — patents, publications, technical standards relevant to the technology
4. Asserted claims identified — which independent and dependent claims are at issue

Report Structure

1. Executive Summary

Element	Content
Overall conclusion	Qualified: "strong likelihood," "probable," "unlikely," or "no infringement"
Per-claim assessment	Bottom-line for each independent claim and key dependents
Recommendations	Cease / license / litigate / design-around / post-grant proceedings
Critical risks	Willfulness exposure, SOL deadlines, related litigation
Key uncertainties	Ambiguous terms, missing technical info, unsettled legal questions

2. Patent Overview

• Bibliographic data — number, title, dates (issue/filing/priority), inventors, assignee, family
• Technical field — problem, inventive concept, advantages over prior art
• Prosecution highlights — amendments, narrowing arguments, disclaimer/estoppel, canceled claims
• Asserted claims — dependency relationships, selection rationale
• Patent status — litigation history, post-grant proceedings, terminal disclaimers

3. Claim Construction

Apply Phillips v. AWH Corp. framework for each disputed term:

Source	Analysis
Claim language	Ordinary meaning to POSITA; context from surrounding claims
Specification	Definitions, "as used herein," lexicography, consistent usage
Prosecution history	Amendments, distinguishing arguments, disclaimer/estoppel
Claim differentiation	Presume different claims have different scope
Extrinsic evidence	Expert testimony, dictionaries — less weight than intrinsic

Output as:

Claim Term	Proposed Construction	Support (col:ln or prosecution doc + page)

Flag ambiguous terms with alternative constructions and outcome impact. For § 112(f) means-plus-function limitations: identify function → corresponding structure in spec → equivalents.

4. Accused Product Description

• Product name, model, purpose, high-level operation
• Feature-by-feature description paralleling claim structure
• Cite evidence precisely: document title, page/section, figure, code file:line
• Note versions/configurations analyzed
• Flag non-observable features and information gaps needing discovery

5. Element-by-Element Infringement Analysis

For each asserted claim, produce a claim chart:

#	Claim Limitation (as construed)	Accused Feature (with evidence)	Literal?	DOE?

Literal infringement: Apply all-elements rule. Cite specific evidence for each correspondence. Explain why each feature meets the limitation — no conclusory statements.

Doctrine of equivalents (where not literally met): Apply function-way-result or insubstantial differences test. Check DOE limitations:

Limitation	Test
Prosecution history estoppel	Amendment-based narrowing? Festo presumption of surrender
Vitiation	Would DOE eliminate the limitation?
Dedication to public	Disclosed but not claimed? Johnson & Johnston
All-limitations rule	Apply per-element, not to invention as a whole

Infringement theories (as applicable):

• Direct (§ 271(a)) — single entity performs all limitations
• Inducement (§ 271(b)) — knowledge + specific intent + active inducement
• Contributory (§ 271(c)) — material component + no substantial non-infringing uses + knowledge

State per-claim infringement likelihood with qualification and basis.

6. Validity Considerations

Presumed valid (§ 282). Invalidity: clear and convincing (litigation) or preponderance (PTAB).

Defense	Framework
Anticipation (§ 102)	Single reference with every limitation; element-by-element; check statutory bars
Obviousness (§ 103)	Graham factors; secondary considerations (commercial success, long-felt need, failure of others, copying)
Eligibility (§ 101)	Alice/Mayo two-step: abstract idea/natural phenomenon → inventive concept
§ 112 defenses	Written description, enablement, definiteness

Flag uncited prior art not before the examiner — these are strong IPR candidates.

7. Defenses, Risks, and Strategy

Equitable defenses: Laches, equitable estoppel, implied license, exhaustion/first sale, inequitable conduct.

Damages:

Factor	Framework
Lost profits	Panduit four-factor test
Reasonable royalty	Georgia-Pacific factors; hypothetical negotiation
Apportionment	Entire market value rule; isolate patented feature value
Marking (§ 287)	Product marking status; pre-notice damages exposure
Enhanced damages	Willfulness risk; opinion of counsel value

Strategy: Evaluate litigation cost/timeline, design-around feasibility, licensing range from comparables, IPR timing (one-year post-complaint deadline), venue under TC Heartland, and business impact.

8. Conclusion and Recommendations

• Synthesize per-claim likelihood integrating construction + analysis + validity
• Candid strengths/weaknesses assessment
• Prioritized next steps by urgency and cost
• Information gaps requiring investigation
• Time-sensitive actions: preservation, opinion of counsel, IPR deadlines

Checks

• Maintain neutral, analytical tone — acknowledge both strengths and weaknesses
• Cite precisely: patent col:ln, prosecution doc date + page, product doc + section, cases in Bluebook
• Use [VERIFY] for any citation not confirmed from source materials
• Distinguish known evidence from areas needing further investigation
• Qualify all assessments based on evidence strength — never overstate
• For means-plus-function claims, always identify structure + equivalents (narrower scope than general DOE)
• Flag willfulness risk early when accused infringer has knowledge of patent