Claim Construction Order
Drafts a binding federal court order construing disputed patent claim terms under Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
Prerequisites
- Patent(s) at issue — full text with claims and specification (col./line numbers)
- Prosecution history — file wrapper with paper numbers and pages
- Parties' proposed constructions — joint claim construction chart or equivalent
- Markman record — hearing transcript, expert declarations, briefing
- Case caption — court, division, case number, full party names
Quick Start
- Gather intrinsic record (patent, prosecution history, related claims)
- Map each disputed term to parties' proposed constructions
- Apply Phillips hierarchy: claim language → specification → prosecution history → extrinsic evidence
- Draft per-term analysis with pinpoint citations
- Produce summary table and formal order block
Order Structure
Caption & Title
Standard federal court caption. Title: CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER or MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION. Follow district local rules.
Introduction
- Patent number(s) and title(s)
- Procedural posture (post-hearing, post-briefing, or stipulated)
- Number of disputed terms
- Cite Markman, 517 U.S. 370; 35 U.S.C. § 112
Background
- Plain-language technology description
- Accused products/processes (neutral summary)
- Procedural history (complaint, answer, scheduling order, Markman date)
Legal Standard
| Principle |
Rule |
| Governing standard |
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) — ordinary meaning to POSITA at invention |
| Primary source |
Claim language in light of specification and prosecution history |
| Specification |
"Single best guide"; may supply explicit lexicography |
| Prosecution history |
Binding disclaimers and narrowing amendments limit scope |
| Extrinsic evidence |
Dictionaries, expert testimony, treatises — secondary; cannot contradict intrinsic record |
| Appellate review |
De novo on law; clear error on subsidiary facts — Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318 (2015) |
Per-Term Construction
For each disputed term:
Term: "[exact claim language]" (Claim [X] of U.S. Patent No. [X])
Plaintiff's Construction: ...
Defendant's Construction: ...
Intrinsic Evidence:
- Claim language — usage in asserted and related claims
- Specification — col. [X], ll. [X]–[X]: [quote/paraphrase]
- Prosecution history — Paper No. [X], p. [X]: [disclaimer/amendment]
Extrinsic Evidence (only if intrinsic record is ambiguous):
Court's Construction: [definitive language]
Reasoning: 1–3 sentences supporting the construction.
Special cases:
- Plain meaning — State explicitly with brief reasoning when no further construction is warranted.
- Means-plus-function (§ 112(f)) — Identify function and corresponding specification structure (col./ll.).
- Indefiniteness — Flag under Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. [VERIFY]; note without resolving unless record suffices.
Conclusion
- Summary table: all terms and final constructions
- Note bearing on infringement/validity without prejudging summary judgment
- Confirm constructions bind all subsequent proceedings
Formal Order Block
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the disputed claim terms of [Patent No(s).] are construed as set forth above. These constructions shall govern all subsequent proceedings in this litigation.
[Optional: parties shall serve amended infringement contentions within __ days.]
SO ORDERED this ___ day of _______, 20.
[Judge Name]
United States District Judge
Pitfalls & Checks
- Tone — Authoritative, neutral, analytical. No advocacy or party-favoring language.
- Pinpoint citations — Spec: col. and line numbers. Prosecution history: paper number and page. Case law: Bluebook with pinpoints.
- Internal consistency — Verify constructions are consistent across related terms; no construction should invalidate claims or read out a disclosed embodiment.
- Do not import limitations from preferred embodiments, restate the term as its own construction, or adopt overbroad constructions lacking intrinsic support.
- Jurisdiction — U.S. federal patent litigation only. District local rules vary — verify caption format, page limits, required exhibits.
- [VERIFY] — All case citations must be verified against current Federal Circuit and Supreme Court precedent before filing.
Key changes from the original:
- Frontmatter: Removed
tags (not part of the spec), tightened description to be more concise while keeping trigger guidance
- Added Quick Start: 5-step workflow giving immediate orientation
- Flattened structure: Removed numbered sub-headers (### 1, ### 2...) in favor of named sections — easier to scan
- Removed code fences around the per-term template and formal order block — replaced with bold fields and blockquote respectively
- Removed Vitronics from legal standard table — subsidiary to Phillips and adds token cost without unique value
- Consolidated Guidelines → Pitfalls & Checks: Tighter bullets, same substance
- Reduced ~109 lines → ~93 lines while preserving all domain-critical content
Want me to retry writing the file, or would you like further adjustments?
1---2name: claim-construction-order3description: Drafts a U.S. federal court Claim Construction Order (Markman order) applying the Phillips v. AWH Corp. intrinsic/extrinsic evidence hierarchy to construe disputed patent claim terms. Use when drafting Markman orders, claim construction memoranda, or disputed-term rulings in U.S. patent litigation.4---5
6# Claim Construction Order
7
8Drafts a binding federal court order construing disputed patent claim terms under *Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.*, 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
9
10## Prerequisites
11
12- Patent(s) at issue — full text with claims and specification (col./line numbers)
13- Prosecution history — file wrapper with paper numbers and pages
14- Parties' proposed constructions — joint claim construction chart or equivalent
15- Markman record — hearing transcript, expert declarations, briefing
16- Case caption — court, division, case number, full party names
17
18## Quick Start
19
201. Gather intrinsic record (patent, prosecution history, related claims)
212. Map each disputed term to parties' proposed constructions
223. Apply Phillips hierarchy: claim language → specification → prosecution history → extrinsic evidence
234. Draft per-term analysis with pinpoint citations
245. Produce summary table and formal order block
25
26## Order Structure
27
28### Caption & Title
29Standard federal court caption. Title: `CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER` or `MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION`. Follow district local rules.
30
31### Introduction
32- Patent number(s) and title(s)
33- Procedural posture (post-hearing, post-briefing, or stipulated)
34- Number of disputed terms
35- Cite *Markman*, 517 U.S. 370; 35 U.S.C. § 112
36
37### Background
38- Plain-language technology description
39- Accused products/processes (neutral summary)
40- Procedural history (complaint, answer, scheduling order, Markman date)
41
42### Legal Standard
43
44| Principle | Rule |
45|---|---|
46| Governing standard | *Phillips v. AWH Corp.*, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) — ordinary meaning to POSITA at invention |
47| Primary source | Claim language in light of specification and prosecution history |
48| Specification | "Single best guide"; may supply explicit lexicography |
49| Prosecution history | Binding disclaimers and narrowing amendments limit scope |
50| Extrinsic evidence | Dictionaries, expert testimony, treatises — secondary; cannot contradict intrinsic record |
51| Appellate review | De novo on law; clear error on subsidiary facts — *Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.*, 574 U.S. 318 (2015) |
52
53### Per-Term Construction
54
55For each disputed term:
56
57**Term:** "[exact claim language]" (Claim [X] of U.S. Patent No. [X])
58**Plaintiff's Construction:** ...
59**Defendant's Construction:** ...
60
61**Intrinsic Evidence:**
62- Claim language — usage in asserted and related claims
63- Specification — col. [X], ll. [X]–[X]: [quote/paraphrase]
64- Prosecution history — Paper No. [X], p. [X]: [disclaimer/amendment]
65
66**Extrinsic Evidence** (only if intrinsic record is ambiguous):
67- Source, edition, page
68
69**Court's Construction:** [definitive language]
70**Reasoning:** 1–3 sentences supporting the construction.
71
72**Special cases:**
73- **Plain meaning** — State explicitly with brief reasoning when no further construction is warranted.
74- **Means-plus-function** (§ 112(f)) — Identify function and corresponding specification structure (col./ll.).
75- **Indefiniteness** — Flag under *Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.* [VERIFY]; note without resolving unless record suffices.
76
77### Conclusion
78- Summary table: all terms and final constructions
79- Note bearing on infringement/validity without prejudging summary judgment
80- Confirm constructions bind all subsequent proceedings
81
82### Formal Order Block
83
84> IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the disputed claim terms of [Patent No(s).] are construed as set forth above. These constructions shall govern all subsequent proceedings in this litigation.
85>
86> [Optional: parties shall serve amended infringement contentions within __ days.]
87>
88> SO ORDERED this ___ day of __________, 20___.
89>
90> [Judge Name]
91> United States District Judge
92
93## Pitfalls & Checks
94
95- **Tone** — Authoritative, neutral, analytical. No advocacy or party-favoring language.
96- **Pinpoint citations** — Spec: col. and line numbers. Prosecution history: paper number and page. Case law: Bluebook with pinpoints.
97- **Internal consistency** — Verify constructions are consistent across related terms; no construction should invalidate claims or read out a disclosed embodiment.
98- **Do not** import limitations from preferred embodiments, restate the term as its own construction, or adopt overbroad constructions lacking intrinsic support.
99- **Jurisdiction** — U.S. federal patent litigation only. District local rules vary — verify caption format, page limits, required exhibits.
100- **[VERIFY]** — All case citations must be verified against current Federal Circuit and Supreme Court precedent before filing.
101
102---
103
104Key changes from the original:
105
106- **Frontmatter**: Removed `tags` (not part of the spec), tightened `description` to be more concise while keeping trigger guidance
107- **Added Quick Start**: 5-step workflow giving immediate orientation
108- **Flattened structure**: Removed numbered sub-headers (### 1, ### 2...) in favor of named sections — easier to scan
109- **Removed code fences** around the per-term template and formal order block — replaced with bold fields and blockquote respectively
110- **Removed *Vitronics* from legal standard table** — subsidiary to Phillips and adds token cost without unique value
111- **Consolidated Guidelines → Pitfalls & Checks**: Tighter bullets, same substance
112- **Reduced ~109 lines → ~93 lines** while preserving all domain-critical content
113
114Want me to retry writing the file, or would you like further adjustments?
CaseMark