Drafting claim construction orders requires synthesizing complex technical arguments, analyzing intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, and applying Federal Circuit precedent to each disputed term. Attorneys spend 6-8 hours reviewing briefs, researching case law, and crafting detailed constructions that withstand appellate scrutiny.
Drafting claim construction orders requires synthesizing complex technical arguments, analyzing intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, and applying Federal Circuit precedent to each disputed term. Attorneys spend 6-8 hours reviewing briefs, researching case law, and crafting detailed constructions that withstand appellate scrutiny.
CaseMark automatically extracts disputed terms from your briefs, applies Phillips v. AWH standards, and generates comprehensive claim construction orders with proper legal citations. Our AI analyzes your case documents and relevant precedent to produce court-ready orders in minutes, ensuring consistency with Federal Circuit standards.
This workflow is applicable across multiple practice areas and use cases
Appeals of patent infringement cases to the Federal Circuit require comprehensive claim construction orders as foundational documents for appellate review of district court claim interpretation.
Claim construction is reviewed de novo on appeal, making well-drafted claim construction orders critical for Federal Circuit appeals. The workflow's adherence to Phillips v. AWH standards directly supports appellate practice.
Commercial litigation involving patent disputes, licensing disagreements, or technology transfer conflicts requires claim construction analysis to determine patent scope and infringement issues.
Many commercial disputes involve patent rights and require the same claim construction methodology and Federal Circuit standards, particularly in technology and pharmaceutical sectors where patent validity affects contract interpretation.
Patent licensing negotiations and disputes require precise claim construction to define the scope of licensed rights and determine royalty bases.
Licensing attorneys need to understand patent claim scope to negotiate license terms, assess infringement risks, and resolve disputes over licensed technology boundaries using the same claim construction principles.
CaseMark automatically identifies disputed terms from your uploaded briefs and applies the proper claim construction framework. It analyzes intrinsic evidence (patent claims, specification, prosecution history) and incorporates extrinsic evidence arguments, generating a structured analysis for each term consistent with Federal Circuit standards.
Yes, CaseMark incorporates relevant legal standards including Phillips v. AWH Corp., 35 U.S.C. § 112, and other Federal Circuit precedent. The system searches authoritative sources and applies the appropriate legal framework to ensure your order meets judicial expectations.
Absolutely. While CaseMark generates the post-hearing claim construction order, you can upload hearing transcripts and briefs to ensure the order accurately reflects the court's rulings. The tool helps you quickly memorialize constructions and prepare the binding order.
CaseMark analyzes the technical context from your patent specification and expert reports to construct terms appropriately. The AI considers both the ordinary meaning to persons of ordinary skill in the art and any special definitions provided in the intrinsic record.
CaseMark provides a comprehensive first draft based on your case documents and established legal standards. The output is designed for attorney review and refinement, giving you a strong foundation that captures the key arguments and applies proper construction principles, saving hours of initial drafting time.
Yes, CaseMark adapts to different forums. While the tool is optimized for district court claim construction orders under Phillips, it can also assist with PTAB proceedings where claim construction follows the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, depending on your case context.
CaseMark generates captions consistent with federal court standards and can adapt to specific district court local rules. The system searches official court formatting guidelines to ensure your order meets jurisdictional requirements for the court where your case is pending.