IP Infringement Analysis
Generates an element-by-element infringement memorandum covering rights identification, type-specific analysis, defenses, and remedies quantification.
Prerequisites
- IP registrations/filings — patents (with claims), trademark registrations, copyright registrations, or trade secret identification documents
- Accused instrumentality — product specs, screenshots, source code, marketing materials, or service descriptions
- Prosecution history (patents) — file wrapper, claim amendments, examiner rejections
- Relevant agreements — licenses, NDAs, employment/non-compete agreements, assignments
- Correspondence — cease-and-desist letters, licensing negotiations, admissions
- Jurisdiction and procedural posture — forum, statute of limitations status
If any prerequisite is missing, pause and ask — do not assume or fill gaps.
Quick Start
- Identify the IP right(s) at issue (Step 1)
- Characterize the accused activity (Step 2)
- Apply the type-specific framework: Patent (A), Trademark (B), Copyright (C), or Trade Secret (D) (Step 3)
- Assess defenses and vulnerabilities (Step 4)
- Evaluate available remedies (Step 5)
- State overall assessment with confidence level (Step 6)
Analyze each IP type separately when multiple types are at issue.
Output Structure
Step 1: IP Rights Identification
| Field |
Detail |
| IP Type |
Patent / Trademark / Copyright / Trade Secret |
| Registration/Application No. |
|
| Filing/Priority Date |
|
| Owner/Claimant |
|
| Key Claims/Mark/Work Description |
|
| Status |
Active / Expired / Pending |
Step 2: Accused Activity
| Field |
Detail |
| Accused party |
|
| Product/service/activity |
|
| Date of first use |
|
| Geographic scope |
|
| Commercial context |
|
Step 3: Type-Specific Analysis
Apply the applicable framework(s):
A. Patent Infringement
- Claim construction — construe disputed terms under Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) [VERIFY]
- Literal infringement — all-elements rule, limitation-by-limitation comparison using claim chart below
- Doctrine of equivalents — function-way-result or insubstantial differences test; check prosecution history estoppel per Festo [VERIFY]
- Means-plus-function — identify § 112(f) limitations, map corresponding structure
- Indirect infringement — induced (§ 271(b)): knowledge + specific intent; contributory (§ 271(c)): material component, no substantial non-infringing use
- Validity challenges — anticipation (§ 102), obviousness (§ 103), enablement/written description (§ 112)
Claim Chart:
| Claim Element |
Accused Feature |
Literal? |
DOE? |
Notes |
| [Limitation 1] |
|
Y/N |
Y/N |
|
| [Limitation 2] |
|
Y/N |
Y/N |
|
A single missing limitation defeats literal infringement on that claim.
B. Trademark Infringement
Identify the correct circuit's likelihood-of-confusion test (Polaroid, Sleekcraft, Lapp, etc.) and apply:
| Factor |
Analysis |
Weight |
| Similarity of marks (sight, sound, meaning, commercial impression) |
|
|
| Relatedness of goods/services |
|
|
| Strength of senior mark (inherent + acquired distinctiveness) |
|
|
| Evidence of actual confusion |
|
|
| Defendant's intent |
|
|
| Consumer sophistication |
|
|
| Channels of trade / marketing convergence |
|
|
| Likelihood of expansion into related markets |
|
|
If famous mark: assess dilution by blurring or tarnishment (§ 1125(c)). Evaluate defenses: descriptive fair use, nominative fair use, First Amendment.
C. Copyright Infringement
- Ownership — valid registration, chain of title
- Access — direct or circumstantial evidence
- Substantial similarity — extrinsic test (objective, filterable elements) + intrinsic test (subjective, ordinary observer)
- Idea/expression filtration — exclude ideas, facts, scènes à faire, merger doctrine elements before applying substantial similarity
- De minimis — whether copying falls below actionable threshold
Fair Use (17 U.S.C. § 107):
| Factor |
Analysis |
Favors |
| Purpose and character (transformative?) |
|
P / D |
| Nature of copyrighted work |
|
P / D |
| Amount and substantiality used |
|
P / D |
| Market effect |
|
P / D |
D. Trade Secret Misappropriation
- Identification — describe each claimed trade secret with specificity
- Qualification — independent economic value from secrecy + reasonable secrecy measures
- Misappropriation method — improper means (theft, breach of duty, espionage) or breach of confidentiality obligation
- Inevitable disclosure — applicable only in jurisdictions recognizing the doctrine; requires high similarity between roles
- Restrictive covenants — NDA/non-compete scope, enforceability, temporal/geographic limits
Step 4: Defenses & Vulnerabilities
| Defense |
Applicability |
Risk Level |
| Statute of limitations / laches |
|
High/Med/Low |
| Estoppel (prosecution, equitable, licensee) |
|
|
| Exhaustion / first sale |
|
|
| Independent creation / reverse engineering |
|
|
| Invalidity / unenforceability |
|
|
| Fair use / nominative use |
|
|
| Unclean hands |
|
|
Step 5: Remedies Assessment
| Remedy |
Availability |
Estimated Range |
| Lost profits |
|
|
| Reasonable royalty |
|
|
| Disgorgement of profits |
|
|
| Statutory damages |
|
|
| Enhanced/treble damages (willfulness) |
|
|
| Attorneys' fees (exceptional case) |
|
|
| Preliminary injunction (eBay factors) |
|
|
| Permanent injunction |
|
|
All damages estimates are preliminary — validate with economic expert analysis.
Step 6: Overall Assessment
| Item |
Assessment |
| Infringement likelihood |
Strong / Moderate / Weak |
| Strongest arguments for infringement |
|
| Greatest vulnerabilities |
|
| Recommended course of action |
Litigate / Settle / License / Monitor |
| Settlement valuation range |
|
Do not state ultimate legal conclusions without qualifying confidence level.
Troubleshooting
| Issue |
Resolution |
| Uncertain claim construction |
Flag ambiguous terms explicitly; present competing constructions with likelihood assessment |
| Circuit split on LOC factors |
Identify the controlling circuit; note split and flag if forum selection could change outcome |
| Mixed literal/DOE results across claims |
Analyze each claim independently; a single claim suffices for infringement |
| Incomplete accused instrumentality info |
Note gaps; qualify analysis as preliminary; request missing specs before finalizing |
| Foreign IP rights implicated |
Flag when Paris Convention, Berne Convention, or TRIPS may apply; analyze domestic and foreign rights separately |
Guidelines
- Cite controlling authority from the relevant jurisdiction; flag persuasive-only authority from other circuits
- Use
[VERIFY] for any citation not confirmed against source documents
- Flag privilege, work-product, or ethical issues (e.g., conflict of interest in analyzing a current client's competitor)
- Output is draft work product — include explicit notation that it does not constitute legal advice
1---2name: ip-infringement-analysis3description: Produces structured IP infringement memoranda evaluating patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. Performs claim-by-claim patent comparisons, likelihood-of-confusion trademark tests, substantial similarity copyright assessments, and trade secret misappropriation evaluations with defense and remedies analysis. Use for infringement opinions, pre-filing assessments, cease-and-desist support, licensing disputes, or settlement valuation.4---5
6# IP Infringement Analysis
7
8Generates an element-by-element infringement memorandum covering rights identification, type-specific analysis, defenses, and remedies quantification.
9
10## Prerequisites
11
121. **IP registrations/filings** — patents (with claims), trademark registrations, copyright registrations, or trade secret identification documents
132. **Accused instrumentality** — product specs, screenshots, source code, marketing materials, or service descriptions
143. **Prosecution history** (patents) — file wrapper, claim amendments, examiner rejections
154. **Relevant agreements** — licenses, NDAs, employment/non-compete agreements, assignments
165. **Correspondence** — cease-and-desist letters, licensing negotiations, admissions
176. **Jurisdiction and procedural posture** — forum, statute of limitations status
18
19If any prerequisite is missing, pause and ask — do not assume or fill gaps.
20
21## Quick Start
22
231. Identify the IP right(s) at issue (Step 1)
242. Characterize the accused activity (Step 2)
253. Apply the type-specific framework: Patent (A), Trademark (B), Copyright (C), or Trade Secret (D) (Step 3)
264. Assess defenses and vulnerabilities (Step 4)
275. Evaluate available remedies (Step 5)
286. State overall assessment with confidence level (Step 6)
29
30Analyze each IP type separately when multiple types are at issue.
31
32## Output Structure
33
34### Step 1: IP Rights Identification
35
36| Field | Detail |
37|-------|--------|
38| IP Type | Patent / Trademark / Copyright / Trade Secret |
39| Registration/Application No. | |
40| Filing/Priority Date | |
41| Owner/Claimant | |
42| Key Claims/Mark/Work Description | |
43| Status | Active / Expired / Pending |
44
45### Step 2: Accused Activity
46
47| Field | Detail |
48|-------|--------|
49| Accused party | |
50| Product/service/activity | |
51| Date of first use | |
52| Geographic scope | |
53| Commercial context | |
54
55### Step 3: Type-Specific Analysis
56
57Apply the applicable framework(s):
58
59#### A. Patent Infringement
60
611. **Claim construction** — construe disputed terms under Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) [VERIFY]
622. **Literal infringement** — all-elements rule, limitation-by-limitation comparison using claim chart below
633. **Doctrine of equivalents** — function-way-result or insubstantial differences test; check prosecution history estoppel per Festo [VERIFY]
644. **Means-plus-function** — identify § 112(f) limitations, map corresponding structure
655. **Indirect infringement** — induced (§ 271(b)): knowledge + specific intent; contributory (§ 271(c)): material component, no substantial non-infringing use
666. **Validity challenges** — anticipation (§ 102), obviousness (§ 103), enablement/written description (§ 112)
67
68**Claim Chart:**
69
70| Claim Element | Accused Feature | Literal? | DOE? | Notes |
71|---------------|----------------|----------|------|-------|
72| [Limitation 1] | | Y/N | Y/N | |
73| [Limitation 2] | | Y/N | Y/N | |
74
75A single missing limitation defeats literal infringement on that claim.
76
77#### B. Trademark Infringement
78
79Identify the correct circuit's likelihood-of-confusion test (Polaroid, Sleekcraft, Lapp, etc.) and apply:
80
81| Factor | Analysis | Weight |
82|--------|----------|--------|
83| Similarity of marks (sight, sound, meaning, commercial impression) | | |
84| Relatedness of goods/services | | |
85| Strength of senior mark (inherent + acquired distinctiveness) | | |
86| Evidence of actual confusion | | |
87| Defendant's intent | | |
88| Consumer sophistication | | |
89| Channels of trade / marketing convergence | | |
90| Likelihood of expansion into related markets | | |
91
92If famous mark: assess dilution by blurring or tarnishment (§ 1125(c)). Evaluate defenses: descriptive fair use, nominative fair use, First Amendment.
93
94#### C. Copyright Infringement
95
961. **Ownership** — valid registration, chain of title
972. **Access** — direct or circumstantial evidence
983. **Substantial similarity** — extrinsic test (objective, filterable elements) + intrinsic test (subjective, ordinary observer)
994. **Idea/expression filtration** — exclude ideas, facts, scènes à faire, merger doctrine elements before applying substantial similarity
1005. **De minimis** — whether copying falls below actionable threshold
101
102**Fair Use (17 U.S.C. § 107):**
103
104| Factor | Analysis | Favors |
105|--------|----------|--------|
106| Purpose and character (transformative?) | | P / D |
107| Nature of copyrighted work | | P / D |
108| Amount and substantiality used | | P / D |
109| Market effect | | P / D |
110
111#### D. Trade Secret Misappropriation
112
1131. **Identification** — describe each claimed trade secret with specificity
1142. **Qualification** — independent economic value from secrecy + reasonable secrecy measures
1153. **Misappropriation method** — improper means (theft, breach of duty, espionage) or breach of confidentiality obligation
1164. **Inevitable disclosure** — applicable only in jurisdictions recognizing the doctrine; requires high similarity between roles
1175. **Restrictive covenants** — NDA/non-compete scope, enforceability, temporal/geographic limits
118
119### Step 4: Defenses & Vulnerabilities
120
121| Defense | Applicability | Risk Level |
122|---------|--------------|------------|
123| Statute of limitations / laches | | High/Med/Low |
124| Estoppel (prosecution, equitable, licensee) | | |
125| Exhaustion / first sale | | |
126| Independent creation / reverse engineering | | |
127| Invalidity / unenforceability | | |
128| Fair use / nominative use | | |
129| Unclean hands | | |
130
131### Step 5: Remedies Assessment
132
133| Remedy | Availability | Estimated Range |
134|--------|-------------|-----------------|
135| Lost profits | | |
136| Reasonable royalty | | |
137| Disgorgement of profits | | |
138| Statutory damages | | |
139| Enhanced/treble damages (willfulness) | | |
140| Attorneys' fees (exceptional case) | | |
141| Preliminary injunction (eBay factors) | | |
142| Permanent injunction | | |
143
144All damages estimates are preliminary — validate with economic expert analysis.
145
146### Step 6: Overall Assessment
147
148| Item | Assessment |
149|------|-----------|
150| Infringement likelihood | Strong / Moderate / Weak |
151| Strongest arguments for infringement | |
152| Greatest vulnerabilities | |
153| Recommended course of action | Litigate / Settle / License / Monitor |
154| Settlement valuation range | |
155
156Do not state ultimate legal conclusions without qualifying confidence level.
157
158## Troubleshooting
159
160| Issue | Resolution |
161|-------|-----------|
162| Uncertain claim construction | Flag ambiguous terms explicitly; present competing constructions with likelihood assessment |
163| Circuit split on LOC factors | Identify the controlling circuit; note split and flag if forum selection could change outcome |
164| Mixed literal/DOE results across claims | Analyze each claim independently; a single claim suffices for infringement |
165| Incomplete accused instrumentality info | Note gaps; qualify analysis as preliminary; request missing specs before finalizing |
166| Foreign IP rights implicated | Flag when Paris Convention, Berne Convention, or TRIPS may apply; analyze domestic and foreign rights separately |
167
168## Guidelines
169
170- Cite controlling authority from the relevant jurisdiction; flag persuasive-only authority from other circuits
171- Use `[VERIFY]` for any citation not confirmed against source documents
172- Flag privilege, work-product, or ethical issues (e.g., conflict of interest in analyzing a current client's competitor)
173- Output is draft work product — include explicit notation that it does not constitute legal advice
CaseMark