How do I install the Recipe Infringement Charting skill?

Run npx skillmds@latest add flowleap-ai/recipe-infringement-charting in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.

Is Recipe Infringement Charting safe to use?

This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Recipe Infringement Charting?

This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.

Is Recipe Infringement Charting free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free, and the skill stays under its author's original license.

Who published Recipe Infringement Charting?

flowleap-ai (@flowleap-ai) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Recipe Infringement Charting by flowleap-ai

Name: Recipe Infringement Charting
Author: flowleap-ai

Recipe Infringement Charting

Litigation recipe for an element-by-element infringement claim chart — verify the patent is in force where it matters, decompose the asserted claims, extract accused-product evidence (OCR datasheets and manuals), and map every element with literal and doctrine-of-equivalents columns. Trigger when the user asks whether a product infringes a patent, wants a claim chart, or needs element-by-element infringement mapping.

flowleap-ai Updated Sep 17, 2026

File contents

Recipe: Infringement Charting

Map asserted claims onto an accused product, element by element.

Step 1: Asserted Patent Intake

flowleap --json summary <asserted-patent>       # biblio, legal status, family, term
flowleap --json ops claims <asserted-patent>
flowleap --json ops description <asserted-patent>   # claim-construction support

Step 2: Enforceability Check

A chart against an expired or lapsed patent is wasted work — check first:

flowleap --json ops legal <asserted-patent>                              # status events
flowleap --json tools run get_patent_term patent_number=<asserted-patent>  # expiry estimate
flowleap --json ops family <asserted-patent>                             # where it is in force

Only chart in jurisdictions with a live family member.

Step 3: Decompose the Asserted Claims

Decompose each asserted independent claim yourself: split on the comprising transition and the semicolon/wherein boundaries, and keep the claim language verbatim per element — the chart maps accused-product evidence against the claim words, not a paraphrase (the method is in recipe-claim-analysis, Step 4).

The element list becomes the chart's rows. Every element must be met — one missing element defeats literal infringement of that claim.

Step 4: Accused-Product Evidence Intake

flowleap ocr ./accused-product-datasheet.pdf > datasheet.md
flowleap ocr https://example.com/product-manual.pdf > manual.md

Collect: datasheets, manuals, teardown reports, marketing claims. Note the provenance of every document — the chart cites evidence, not impressions.

Step 5: Build the Chart

Claim element	Claim language	Accused product feature	Evidence (doc + location)	Literal?	DoE?

Literal: the element reads directly on the product feature
DoE (doctrine of equivalents): insubstantial difference — function/way/result; flag prosecution-history estoppel risks from the file history

flowleap --json legal search "doctrine of equivalents function way result" --jurisdiction uspto
flowleap --json legal search "prosecution history estoppel" --jurisdiction uspto

Step 6: Construction Disputes

For each element where the mapping is contested, pull the specification passages that define the term (Step 1's description) and record both constructions with the chart cell marked "disputed".

Output

Enforceability memo (status, term, jurisdictions)
Element-by-element claim chart with literal/DoE columns and evidence cites
List of disputed constructions with spec support for each side
Caveat block: this is an analysis aid, not a legal opinion

---name: recipe-infringement-chartingdescription: Litigation recipe for an element-by-element infringement claim chart — verify the patent is in force where it matters, decompose the asserted claims, extract accused-product evidence (OCR datasheets and manuals), and map every element with literal and doctrine-of-equivalents columns. Trigger when the user asks whether a product infringes a patent, wants a claim chart, or needs element-by-element infringement mapping.---# Recipe: Infringement ChartingMap asserted claims onto an accused product, element by element.## Step 1: Asserted Patent Intake```bashflowleap --json summary <asserted-patent> # biblio, legal status, family, termflowleap --json ops claims <asserted-patent>flowleap --json ops description <asserted-patent> # claim-construction support```## Step 2: Enforceability CheckA chart against an expired or lapsed patent is wasted work — check first:```bashflowleap --json ops legal <asserted-patent> # status eventsflowleap --json tools run get_patent_term patent_number=<asserted-patent> # expiry estimateflowleap --json ops family <asserted-patent> # where it is in force```Only chart in jurisdictions with a live family member.## Step 3: Decompose the Asserted ClaimsDecompose each asserted independent claim yourself: split on the`comprising` transition and the semicolon/`wherein` boundaries, and keep theclaim language **verbatim** per element — the chart maps accused-productevidence against the claim words, not a paraphrase (the method is in`recipe-claim-analysis`, Step 4).The element list becomes the chart's rows. Every element must be met —one missing element defeats literal infringement of that claim.## Step 4: Accused-Product Evidence Intake```bashflowleap ocr ./accused-product-datasheet.pdf > datasheet.mdflowleap ocr https://example.com/product-manual.pdf > manual.md```Collect: datasheets, manuals, teardown reports, marketing claims. Note theprovenance of every document — the chart cites evidence, not impressions.## Step 5: Build the Chart| Claim element | Claim language | Accused product feature | Evidence (doc + location) | Literal? | DoE? ||---------------|----------------|-------------------------|---------------------------|----------|------|- **Literal**: the element reads directly on the product feature- **DoE** (doctrine of equivalents): insubstantial difference — function/way/result; flag prosecution-history estoppel risks from the file history```bashflowleap --json legal search "doctrine of equivalents function way result" --jurisdiction usptoflowleap --json legal search "prosecution history estoppel" --jurisdiction uspto```## Step 6: Construction DisputesFor each element where the mapping is contested, pull the specificationpassages that define the term (Step 1's description) and record bothconstructions with the chart cell marked "disputed".## Output- Enforceability memo (status, term, jurisdictions)- Element-by-element claim chart with literal/DoE columns and evidence cites- List of disputed constructions with spec support for each side- Caveat block: this is an analysis aid, not a legal opinion

Frequently asked questions