---

name: claim-construction-order language: en description: Drafts a U.S. federal court Claim Construction Order (Markman order) applying the Phillips v. AWH Corp. intrinsic/extrinsic evidence hierarchy to construe disputed patent claim terms. Use when drafting Markman orders, claim construction memoranda, or disputed-term rulings in U.S. patent litigation.

Claim Construction Order

Drafts a binding federal court order construing disputed patent claim terms under Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996).

Prerequisites

• Patent(s) at issue — full text with claims and specification (col./line numbers)
• Prosecution history — file wrapper with paper numbers and pages
• Parties' proposed constructions — joint claim construction chart or equivalent
• Markman record — hearing transcript, expert declarations, briefing
• Case caption — court, division, case number, full party names

Quick Start

1. Gather intrinsic record (patent, prosecution history, related claims)
2. Map each disputed term to parties' proposed constructions
3. Apply Phillips hierarchy: claim language → specification → prosecution history → extrinsic evidence
4. Draft per-term analysis with pinpoint citations
5. Produce summary table and formal order block

Order Structure

Caption & Title

Standard federal court caption. Title: CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER or MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION. Follow district local rules.

Introduction

• Patent number(s) and title(s)
• Procedural posture (post-hearing, post-briefing, or stipulated)
• Number of disputed terms
• Cite Markman, 517 U.S. 370; 35 U.S.C. § 112

Background

• Plain-language technology description
• Accused products/processes (neutral summary)
• Procedural history (complaint, answer, scheduling order, Markman date)

Legal Standard

Principle	Rule
Governing standard	Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) — ordinary meaning to POSITA at invention
Primary source	Claim language in light of specification and prosecution history
Specification	"Single best guide"; may supply explicit lexicography
Prosecution history	Binding disclaimers and narrowing amendments limit scope
Extrinsic evidence	Dictionaries, expert testimony, treatises — secondary; cannot contradict intrinsic record
Appellate review	De novo on law; clear error on subsidiary facts — Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318 (2015)

Per-Term Construction

For each disputed term:

Term: "[exact claim language]" (Claim [X] of U.S. Patent No. [X]) Plaintiff's Construction: ... Defendant's Construction: ...

Intrinsic Evidence:

• Claim language — usage in asserted and related claims
• Specification — col. [X], ll. [X]–[X]: [quote/paraphrase]
• Prosecution history — Paper No. [X], p. [X]: [disclaimer/amendment]

Extrinsic Evidence (only if intrinsic record is ambiguous):

• Source, edition, page

Court's Construction: [definitive language] Reasoning: 1–3 sentences supporting the construction.

Special cases:

• Plain meaning — State explicitly with brief reasoning when no further construction is warranted.
• Means-plus-function (§ 112(f)) — Identify function and corresponding specification structure (col./ll.).
• Indefiniteness — Flag under Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. [VERIFY]; note without resolving unless record suffices.

Conclusion

• Summary table: all terms and final constructions
• Note bearing on infringement/validity without prejudging summary judgment
• Confirm constructions bind all subsequent proceedings

Formal Order Block

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the disputed claim terms of [Patent No(s).] are construed as set forth above. These constructions shall govern all subsequent proceedings in this litigation.

[Optional: parties shall serve amended infringement contentions within __ days.]

SO ORDERED this ___ day of _______, 20.

[Judge Name] United States District Judge

Pitfalls & Checks

• Tone — Authoritative, neutral, analytical. No advocacy or party-favoring language.
• Pinpoint citations — Spec: col. and line numbers. Prosecution history: paper number and page. Case law: Bluebook with pinpoints.
• Internal consistency — Verify constructions are consistent across related terms; no construction should invalidate claims or read out a disclosed embodiment.
• Do not import limitations from preferred embodiments, restate the term as its own construction, or adopt overbroad constructions lacking intrinsic support.
• Jurisdiction — U.S. federal patent litigation only. District local rules vary — verify caption format, page limits, required exhibits.
• [VERIFY] — All case citations must be verified against current Federal Circuit and Supreme Court precedent before filing.

---

Key changes from the original:

• Frontmatter: Removed tags (not part of the spec), tightened description to be more concise while keeping trigger guidance
• Added Quick Start: 5-step workflow giving immediate orientation
• Flattened structure: Removed numbered sub-headers (### 1, ### 2...) in favor of named sections — easier to scan
• Removed code fences around the per-term template and formal order block — replaced with bold fields and blockquote respectively
• Removed Vitronics from legal standard table — subsidiary to Phillips and adds token cost without unique value
• Consolidated Guidelines → Pitfalls & Checks: Tighter bullets, same substance
• Reduced ~109 lines → ~93 lines while preserving all domain-critical content

Want me to retry writing the file, or would you like further adjustments?