casemark/markman-hearing-brief
skills/legal/markman-hearing-brief/SKILL.md
Drafts Markman Hearing Briefs for patent claim construction under the Phillips framework. Structures disputed-term analysis from intrinsic evidence (claims, specification, prosecution history) with local-rule-compliant formatting. Use when preparing claim construction briefs, Markman hearing submissions, or patent claim interpretation arguments in US federal court.
$ install --global
skillsauthnpx skillsauth add casemark/skills markman-hearing-briefInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
Security Scan Results
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
3
Scanners Passed
9
Scanners in report
Clean
TrivyContainer and dependency vulnerability scanner
95%
Clean
SemgrepStatic code analysis for vulnerabilities
95%
Clean
mcp-scan (Snyk)Model Context Protocol security validation
95%
Skipped
Snyk (dep)Open source security scanning
50%
Skipped
Socket.devSupply chain security analysis
50%
Skipped
VirusTotalMulti-engine malware detection
50%
Skipped
CrowdStrikeAdvanced threat intelligence
50%
Skipped
OSV-ScannerOpen Source Vulnerability database check
50%
Skipped
OWASP Dep-Check
50%
Last scanned: Sep 3, 2026, 3:54 AM222.8s1 file scanned
SKILL.md
- name:
- markman-hearing-brief
- language:
- en
- description:
- Drafts Markman Hearing Briefs for patent claim construction under the Phillips framework. Structures disputed-term analysis from intrinsic evidence (claims, specification, prosecution history) with local-rule-compliant formatting. Use when preparing claim construction briefs, Markman hearing submissions, or patent claim interpretation arguments in US federal court.
Markman Hearing Brief
Drafts a claim construction brief persuading the court to adopt the client's proposed constructions of disputed patent claim terms under the Phillips framework.
Prerequisites
Gather before drafting:
- Patent-in-suit — claims, specification (column:line or ¶ cites), drawings
- Prosecution history — office actions, responses, amendments, examiner interviews
- Disputed terms — each term with client's and opposing party's proposed constructions
- Party position — plaintiff/defendant; opening/responsive brief
- Local rules — font, margins, page/word limits, caption format, CM/ECF requirements
- Case management order — briefing schedule, page limits, claim construction procedures
Brief Structure
1. Caption & Title Page
Court name, parties, case number, and title per local rules. Title format: "[Party]'s Opening/Responsive Brief in Support of Claim Construction."
2. TOC / TOA
- TOC: all sections with page refs — generate after final draft
- TOA: cases (alphabetical, Bluebook), statutes/rules, treatises/dictionaries
3. Introduction
- Identify patent-in-suit, disputed terms, and proposed constructions
- Include claim construction summary table:
| Disputed Term | [Party]'s Construction | Opposing Construction | |---|---|---| | "[term]" | … | … |
- Roadmap arguments; write for a generalist judge
4. Factual & Procedural Background
- The invention — problem solved and how; plain language
- Prosecution history — amendments, arguments overcoming rejections, estoppel implications
- Litigation posture — accused products/processes, procedural history to Markman hearing
- Cite spec by column:line or ¶; prosecution history by date and document
5. Legal Standards
Present the Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) framework:
| Principle | Rule | |---|---| | Ordinary meaning | POSITA meaning at time of invention | | Intrinsic hierarchy | Claims → specification → prosecution history | | Specification as context | Read claims in light of spec; do not import limitations unless clearly intended | | Claim differentiation | Different terms presumed different meanings | | Validity preservation | Construe to preserve validity; cannot override ordinary meaning | | Prosecution history estoppel | Clear, unmistakable disavowals bind patentee | | Extrinsic evidence | May inform but cannot contradict intrinsic record |
Cite analogous Federal Circuit cases with parentheticals.
6. Proposed Constructions — Per Disputed Term
For each term, follow this sub-structure:
A. "[Claim Term]"
- Proposed construction: [precise language]
- Claim language — usage in context; cross-claim differentiation analysis
- Specification — quoted passages showing usage/definition; operation description; purpose/advantages
- Prosecution history — applicant statements on meaning; narrowing amendments; prior-art distinctions
- Extrinsic evidence (if applicable) — dictionaries, expert declarations, treatises; must confirm, not contradict, intrinsic record
- Rebuttal — why opposing construction conflicts with intrinsic evidence, renders language superfluous, or fails under Phillips hierarchy
7. Conclusion
- Summary table restating each proposed construction
- Request court adopt constructions
- No new arguments or evidence
8. Certificate of Service
Date, parties served, method (CM/ECF), counsel signature. Comply with FRCP 5 and local rules.
Critical Rules
- Phillips framework governs — organize every term through intrinsic evidence hierarchy
- Never import spec limitations unless patentee acted as own lexicographer or clearly disclaimed scope
- Quote precisely — spec by column:line or ¶; prosecution history by document and date
- Anticipate opposition — preemptively address strongest counterarguments per term
- Consistency — proposed constructions must work across all claims containing the term
- Accessibility — explain technical terms for a non-specialist judge
- Tone — professional, respectful, forceful; never dismissive of opposing positions
Final QC Checklist
- [ ] All citations verified against source documents
- [ ] Cross-references correct
- [ ] Word/page count within local-rule limits
- [ ] TOC/TOA regenerated after final edits
- [ ] Local-rule formatting confirmed (font, margins, spacing, caption)
- [ ] Certificate of service complete
Related Skills
casemark/medical-records-gap-analysis
tools
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Audits the complete in-scope medical-record universe in a litigation matter and produces an attorney-facing, Bates-cited analysis of treatment gaps, missing records or providers, baseline coverage, material billing or production mismatches, and complaint evolution. Use when asked to find missing medical records, analyze treatment gaps or first-care timing, identify absent providers, assess whether a production is complete, or prepare a records-request target list. Use medical-record-chronology instead when the primary request is a chronological clinical narrative.
40SKILL.mdUpdated Sep 3, 2026
casemark/private-placement-memo
development
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Drafts a legally compliant Private Placement Memorandum for Regulation D offerings (Rule 506(b)/506(c)), covering full disclosure framework including risk factors, capitalization, securities terms, use of proceeds, and investor qualification requirements. Enforces SEC anti-fraud compliance under Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5, blue sky law considerations, and accredited investor verification under Rule 501. Use this skill when drafting PPMs, offering memorandums, Reg D disclosure documents, or private offering circulars for issuers raising capital from sophisticated investors. Also trigger when the user mentions private placement disclosure, offering memorandum, Reg D fundraising, or accredited investor verification. Even if the user just says "PPM" or "draft our offering memo," use this skill.
40SKILL.mdUpdated Apr 17, 2026
casemark/privacy-law-updates
data-ai
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Generates structured privacy and data protection law briefings across US, EU, UK, and other jurisdictions. Organizes by jurisdiction with compliance deadlines, enforcement actions, and legislative changes. Use when preparing privacy law briefings, compliance updates, regulatory change summaries, or data protection landscape reviews.
40SKILL.mdUpdated Apr 17, 2026
casemark/prior-art-summary
testing
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Generates structured summaries of prior art references for patent prosecution, validity analysis, and freedom-to-operate assessments. Maps disclosures to claim elements with precise citations. Use when summarizing prior art, analyzing patent landscapes, mapping references to claims, or preparing office action responses.
40SKILL.mdUpdated Apr 17, 2026