casemark/patent-infringement-analysis

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