---

name: ip-infringement-analysis language: en description: Produces structured IP infringement memoranda evaluating patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. Performs claim-by-claim patent comparisons, likelihood-of-confusion trademark tests, substantial similarity copyright assessments, and trade secret misappropriation evaluations with defense and remedies analysis. Use for infringement opinions, pre-filing assessments, cease-and-desist support, licensing disputes, or settlement valuation. tags:

• litigation
• analysis
• memo

---

IP Infringement Analysis

Generates an element-by-element infringement memorandum covering rights identification, type-specific analysis, defenses, and remedies quantification.

Prerequisites

1. IP registrations/filings — patents (with claims), trademark registrations, copyright registrations, or trade secret identification documents
2. Accused instrumentality — product specs, screenshots, source code, marketing materials, or service descriptions
3. Prosecution history (patents) — file wrapper, claim amendments, examiner rejections
4. Relevant agreements — licenses, NDAs, employment/non-compete agreements, assignments
5. Correspondence — cease-and-desist letters, licensing negotiations, admissions
6. Jurisdiction and procedural posture — forum, statute of limitations status

If any prerequisite is missing, pause and ask — do not assume or fill gaps.

Quick Start

1. Identify the IP right(s) at issue (Step 1)
2. Characterize the accused activity (Step 2)
3. Apply the type-specific framework: Patent (A), Trademark (B), Copyright (C), or Trade Secret (D) (Step 3)
4. Assess defenses and vulnerabilities (Step 4)
5. Evaluate available remedies (Step 5)
6. State overall assessment with confidence level (Step 6)

Analyze each IP type separately when multiple types are at issue.

Output Structure

Step 1: IP Rights Identification

Field	Detail
IP Type	Patent / Trademark / Copyright / Trade Secret
Registration/Application No.
Filing/Priority Date
Owner/Claimant
Key Claims/Mark/Work Description
Status	Active / Expired / Pending

Step 2: Accused Activity

Field	Detail
Accused party
Product/service/activity
Date of first use
Geographic scope
Commercial context

Step 3: Type-Specific Analysis

Apply the applicable framework(s):

A. Patent Infringement

1. Claim construction — construe disputed terms under Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) [VERIFY]
2. Literal infringement — all-elements rule, limitation-by-limitation comparison using claim chart below
3. Doctrine of equivalents — function-way-result or insubstantial differences test; check prosecution history estoppel per Festo [VERIFY]
4. Means-plus-function — identify § 112(f) limitations, map corresponding structure
5. Indirect infringement — induced (§ 271(b)): knowledge + specific intent; contributory (§ 271(c)): material component, no substantial non-infringing use
6. Validity challenges — anticipation (§ 102), obviousness (§ 103), enablement/written description (§ 112)

Claim Chart:

Claim Element	Accused Feature	Literal?	DOE?	Notes
[Limitation 1]		Y/N	Y/N
[Limitation 2]		Y/N	Y/N

A single missing limitation defeats literal infringement on that claim.

B. Trademark Infringement

Identify the correct circuit's likelihood-of-confusion test (Polaroid, Sleekcraft, Lapp, etc.) and apply:

Factor	Analysis	Weight
Similarity of marks (sight, sound, meaning, commercial impression)
Relatedness of goods/services
Strength of senior mark (inherent + acquired distinctiveness)
Evidence of actual confusion
Defendant's intent
Consumer sophistication
Channels of trade / marketing convergence
Likelihood of expansion into related markets

If famous mark: assess dilution by blurring or tarnishment (§ 1125(c)). Evaluate defenses: descriptive fair use, nominative fair use, First Amendment.

C. Copyright Infringement

1. Ownership — valid registration, chain of title
2. Access — direct or circumstantial evidence
3. Substantial similarity — extrinsic test (objective, filterable elements) + intrinsic test (subjective, ordinary observer)
4. Idea/expression filtration — exclude ideas, facts, scènes à faire, merger doctrine elements before applying substantial similarity
5. De minimis — whether copying falls below actionable threshold

Fair Use (17 U.S.C. § 107):

Factor	Analysis	Favors
Purpose and character (transformative?)		P / D
Nature of copyrighted work		P / D
Amount and substantiality used		P / D
Market effect		P / D

D. Trade Secret Misappropriation

1. Identification — describe each claimed trade secret with specificity
2. Qualification — independent economic value from secrecy + reasonable secrecy measures
3. Misappropriation method — improper means (theft, breach of duty, espionage) or breach of confidentiality obligation
4. Inevitable disclosure — applicable only in jurisdictions recognizing the doctrine; requires high similarity between roles
5. Restrictive covenants — NDA/non-compete scope, enforceability, temporal/geographic limits

Step 4: Defenses & Vulnerabilities

Defense	Applicability	Risk Level
Statute of limitations / laches		High/Med/Low
Estoppel (prosecution, equitable, licensee)
Exhaustion / first sale
Independent creation / reverse engineering
Invalidity / unenforceability
Fair use / nominative use
Unclean hands

Step 5: Remedies Assessment

Remedy	Availability	Estimated Range
Lost profits
Reasonable royalty
Disgorgement of profits
Statutory damages
Enhanced/treble damages (willfulness)
Attorneys' fees (exceptional case)
Preliminary injunction (eBay factors)
Permanent injunction

All damages estimates are preliminary — validate with economic expert analysis.

Step 6: Overall Assessment

Item	Assessment
Infringement likelihood	Strong / Moderate / Weak
Strongest arguments for infringement
Greatest vulnerabilities
Recommended course of action	Litigate / Settle / License / Monitor
Settlement valuation range

Do not state ultimate legal conclusions without qualifying confidence level.

Troubleshooting

Issue	Resolution
Uncertain claim construction	Flag ambiguous terms explicitly; present competing constructions with likelihood assessment
Circuit split on LOC factors	Identify the controlling circuit; note split and flag if forum selection could change outcome
Mixed literal/DOE results across claims	Analyze each claim independently; a single claim suffices for infringement
Incomplete accused instrumentality info	Note gaps; qualify analysis as preliminary; request missing specs before finalizing
Foreign IP rights implicated	Flag when Paris Convention, Berne Convention, or TRIPS may apply; analyze domestic and foreign rights separately

Guidelines

• Cite controlling authority from the relevant jurisdiction; flag persuasive-only authority from other circuits
• Use [VERIFY] for any citation not confirmed against source documents
• Flag privilege, work-product, or ethical issues (e.g., conflict of interest in analyzing a current client's competitor)
• Output is draft work product — include explicit notation that it does not constitute legal advice