Joint Claim Construction Chart
Drafts a joint claim construction chart presenting parties' competing interpretations of disputed patent claim terms for Markman proceedings.
Prerequisites
- Asserted patent(s): number, title, issue date, inventors, full claim text
- Case caption: party names, court/division, civil action number
- Identified disputed terms from contentions or meet-and-confer
- Parties' proposed constructions with supporting intrinsic evidence
- Prosecution history: office action responses, amendments, examiner statements
- Applicable local patent rules (e.g., N.D. Cal., E.D. Tex., D. Del.)
Quick Start
- Gather patent documents, disputed terms, and both parties' proposed constructions
- Identify the district's local patent rules for formatting requirements
- Build the disputed terms table with per-term evidence citations
- Classify each term as agreed, partially agreed, or disputed
- Add certifications and signature blocks per local rules
Output Structure
Caption and Cover
Include: court (full designation with division), all parties, civil action number, patent(s) with number/title/issue date/inventors, and document title per local rules ("Joint Claim Construction Chart" or "Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement").
Disputed Terms Table
One row per disputed term with these columns:
| Column |
Content |
| No. |
Sequential or claim-order number |
| Claim Term |
Exact language from patent |
| Claim No(s). |
All claims where term appears |
| Context |
Surrounding claim language for court reference |
| Plaintiff's Construction |
Plain-language meaning + intrinsic evidence |
| Defendant's Construction |
Plain-language meaning + intrinsic evidence |
| Agreement Status |
Agreed / Partial / Disputed |
Evidence Citations
For each proposed construction, cite intrinsic evidence:
- Specification — col:line (utility) or paragraph number (applications)
- Claims — related claim language providing definitional context
- Prosecution history — office action responses, amendments, applicant arguments
- Figures/embodiments — specific figures illustrating term meaning
All constructions follow Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc): terms receive ordinary and customary meaning to a POSITA at time of invention, read in light of specification and prosecution history.
If extrinsic evidence is used, it is subordinate to intrinsic evidence per Phillips. Acceptable types: contemporaneous technical dictionaries/treatises, expert declarations (with qualifications and POSITA basis), prior art showing terminology usage, admissible inventor testimony.
Agreement and Disagreement
For each term, classify as:
- Full agreement — present agreed construction; note no judicial construction needed
- Partial agreement — state agreed portions, isolate remaining disputes
- Full disagreement — summarize dispute nature (scope, embodiment limitation, prosecution history impact, indefiniteness)
Indefiniteness Contentions
If a term is challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
- State position in defendant's construction column
- Apply Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 901 (2014): whether claim "inform[s] those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty"
- Provide factual and legal basis
Certifications and Signatures
- Signature blocks for lead counsel (each party): name, bar number, firm, address, phone, email
- Meet-and-confer certification: dates, participants, good-faith compliance with local patent rules
- Any additional certifications required by local rules
Checks and Pitfalls
- Pin-cite everything — specification col:line, prosecution history date/page, case reporter/page
- Mirror structure — defendant's section must parallel plaintiff's format exactly
- Bluebook citations — proper case names, reporters, pinpoints, parentheticals
- USPTO conventions — patent number, inventor names, issue date, col:line references
- District-specific compliance — check local rules for meet-and-confer requirements, page limits, font/margin rules, joint vs. separate filing
- Jury-suitable constructions — plain-language meanings understandable to a lay jury
- Omit agreed terms unless local rules require listing them
- Flag same-term-different-context — a term in multiple claims may warrant different constructions
- Group related terms by technology concept or claim element when logical
1---2name: claim-construction-chart3description: Drafts Joint Claim Construction Charts for patent litigation Markman hearings in US federal courts. Organizes disputed claim terms with competing party constructions, intrinsic/extrinsic evidence citations, and agreement status. Use when preparing claim construction charts, Markman hearing exhibits, or joint prehearing statements in IP litigation.4---5
6# Joint Claim Construction Chart
7
8Drafts a joint claim construction chart presenting parties' competing interpretations of disputed patent claim terms for Markman proceedings.
9
10## Prerequisites
11
12- Asserted patent(s): number, title, issue date, inventors, full claim text
13- Case caption: party names, court/division, civil action number
14- Identified disputed terms from contentions or meet-and-confer
15- Parties' proposed constructions with supporting intrinsic evidence
16- Prosecution history: office action responses, amendments, examiner statements
17- Applicable local patent rules (e.g., N.D. Cal., E.D. Tex., D. Del.)
18
19## Quick Start
20
211. Gather patent documents, disputed terms, and both parties' proposed constructions
222. Identify the district's local patent rules for formatting requirements
233. Build the disputed terms table with per-term evidence citations
244. Classify each term as agreed, partially agreed, or disputed
255. Add certifications and signature blocks per local rules
26
27## Output Structure
28
29### Caption and Cover
30
31Include: court (full designation with division), all parties, civil action number, patent(s) with number/title/issue date/inventors, and document title per local rules ("Joint Claim Construction Chart" or "Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement").
32
33### Disputed Terms Table
34
35One row per disputed term with these columns:
36
37| Column | Content |
38|--------|---------|
39| No. | Sequential or claim-order number |
40| Claim Term | Exact language from patent |
41| Claim No(s). | All claims where term appears |
42| Context | Surrounding claim language for court reference |
43| Plaintiff's Construction | Plain-language meaning + intrinsic evidence |
44| Defendant's Construction | Plain-language meaning + intrinsic evidence |
45| Agreement Status | Agreed / Partial / Disputed |
46
47### Evidence Citations
48
49For each proposed construction, cite intrinsic evidence:
50
51- **Specification** — col:line (utility) or paragraph number (applications)
52- **Claims** — related claim language providing definitional context
53- **Prosecution history** — office action responses, amendments, applicant arguments
54- **Figures/embodiments** — specific figures illustrating term meaning
55
56All constructions follow *Phillips v. AWH Corp.*, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc): terms receive ordinary and customary meaning to a POSITA at time of invention, read in light of specification and prosecution history.
57
58If extrinsic evidence is used, it is subordinate to intrinsic evidence per *Phillips*. Acceptable types: contemporaneous technical dictionaries/treatises, expert declarations (with qualifications and POSITA basis), prior art showing terminology usage, admissible inventor testimony.
59
60### Agreement and Disagreement
61
62For each term, classify as:
63
64- **Full agreement** — present agreed construction; note no judicial construction needed
65- **Partial agreement** — state agreed portions, isolate remaining disputes
66- **Full disagreement** — summarize dispute nature (scope, embodiment limitation, prosecution history impact, indefiniteness)
67
68### Indefiniteness Contentions
69
70If a term is challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
71
72- State position in defendant's construction column
73- Apply *Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.*, 572 U.S. 901 (2014): whether claim "inform[s] those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty"
74- Provide factual and legal basis
75
76### Certifications and Signatures
77
78- Signature blocks for lead counsel (each party): name, bar number, firm, address, phone, email
79- Meet-and-confer certification: dates, participants, good-faith compliance with local patent rules
80- Any additional certifications required by local rules
81
82## Checks and Pitfalls
83
84- **Pin-cite everything** — specification col:line, prosecution history date/page, case reporter/page
85- **Mirror structure** — defendant's section must parallel plaintiff's format exactly
86- **Bluebook citations** — proper case names, reporters, pinpoints, parentheticals
87- **USPTO conventions** — patent number, inventor names, issue date, col:line references
88- **District-specific compliance** — check local rules for meet-and-confer requirements, page limits, font/margin rules, joint vs. separate filing
89- **Jury-suitable constructions** — plain-language meanings understandable to a lay jury
90- **Omit agreed terms** unless local rules require listing them
91- **Flag same-term-different-context** — a term in multiple claims may warrant different constructions
92- **Group related terms** by technology concept or claim element when logical
CaseMark