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

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:

Output as:

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:

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:

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).

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:

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