← Back to workflows
Intellectual Property Litigation

Joint Claim Construction Chart

Preparing joint claim construction charts requires painstaking analysis of patent specifications, prosecution history, and competing proposals from both parties. Attorneys spend 6-8 hours cross-referencing claim terms, extracting supporting citations, comparing constructions, and formatting complex tables—all while ensuring compliance with local patent rules and Federal Circuit standards.

Automation ROI

Time savings at a glance

Manual workflow12 hoursAverage time your team spends by hand
With CaseMark25 minutesDelivery time with CaseMark automation
EfficiencySave 32.5x time with CaseMark

The Problem

Preparing Joint Claim Construction Charts requires exhaustive review of patent specifications, prosecution histories, and case documents to extract disputed terms and supporting evidence. Attorneys spend 10-15 hours manually compiling constructions, citations, and formatting charts to comply with varying district court local patent rules. This time-intensive process delays Markman hearing preparation and diverts resources from strategic claim construction arguments.

The CaseMark Solution

CaseMark automatically analyzes uploaded patents, pleadings, and prosecution histories to identify disputed claim terms and extract supporting intrinsic evidence with precise citations. The platform generates professionally formatted Joint Claim Construction Charts compliant with district-specific local patent rules, complete with party constructions, evidentiary support, and meet-and-confer certifications. What traditionally takes days of attorney time is completed in minutes, allowing counsel to focus on developing winning claim construction strategies.

Key benefits

How CaseMark automations transform your workflow

Extract and organize disputed claim terms automatically from patent documents and party proposals

Generate side-by-side construction comparisons with supporting citations from intrinsic evidence

Identify points of agreement and disagreement between parties' proposed constructions

Access verified legal sources and Federal Circuit precedent for claim interpretation standards

Ensure compliance with local patent rules and federal court formatting requirements

What you'll receive

Case Information
Disputed Claim Terms
Plaintiff's Proposed Constructions
Defendant's Proposed Constructions
Points of Agreement and Disagreement
Extrinsic Evidence and Supporting Arguments
Signatures and Certification

Document requirements

Required

  • Asserted Patent(s)
  • Complaint or Infringement Contentions

Optional

  • Prosecution History
  • Prior Claim Construction Correspondence
  • Expert Declarations
  • Technical Dictionaries or Treatises
  • Prior Art References

Perfect for

Patent Litigation Associates
IP Litigation Partners
In-House Patent Counsel
Patent Prosecutors handling litigation support
Boutique IP Litigation Firms

Also useful for

This workflow is applicable across multiple practice areas and use cases

Patent licensing negotiations require clear claim construction analysis to define scope of licensed rights and identify potential infringement issues before finalizing license terms.

IP licensing attorneys need to understand claim scope and potential disputes to properly value patents, draft license terms, and assess infringement risks during due diligence.

M&A due diligence for technology acquisitions requires analyzing patent portfolios and identifying claim construction issues that could affect valuation or create post-acquisition litigation risks.

Acquirers need to evaluate patent strength and ongoing or potential claim construction disputes to properly value IP assets and assess litigation exposure in technology transactions.

During IP due diligence for investments in patent-heavy companies, investors need to assess patent strength and potential litigation exposure through claim construction analysis.

VC and PE firms evaluating technology companies must understand patent claim scope and potential disputes to assess IP asset value and litigation risk before investment decisions.

Frequently asked questions

Q

What documents do I need to generate a Joint Claim Construction Chart?

A

At minimum, you need the asserted patent(s) and the complaint or infringement contentions identifying which claims are at issue. For more comprehensive charts, upload prosecution history files, prior claim construction correspondence, expert declarations, and any technical dictionaries or prior art references. CaseMark analyzes all uploaded documents to extract disputed terms and supporting evidence for both parties' proposed constructions.

Q

Does CaseMark comply with different district court local patent rules?

A

Yes, CaseMark formats Joint Claim Construction Charts according to the specific local patent rules of major patent litigation venues including the Northern District of California, Eastern District of Texas, District of Delaware, and other federal districts. The platform adjusts formatting, caption requirements, and procedural certifications based on the selected jurisdiction to ensure compliance with court-specific requirements.

Q

How does CaseMark identify which claim terms are disputed?

A

CaseMark analyzes the asserted patent claims along with any uploaded infringement contentions, meet-and-confer correspondence, or preliminary claim construction exchanges to identify terms requiring construction. The platform extracts exact claim language, identifies all instances where terms appear across multiple claims, and organizes them for construction. You can review and modify the identified terms before finalizing the chart.

Q

Can I customize the proposed constructions for each party?

A

Absolutely. CaseMark generates initial proposed constructions based on intrinsic evidence from the patent specification and prosecution history, but you have full control to edit, refine, or completely rewrite any construction. The platform provides the evidentiary foundation with precise citations, which you can supplement with your strategic arguments and additional extrinsic evidence to support your client's position.

Q

How accurate are the specification and prosecution history citations?

A

CaseMark provides precise citations including column and line numbers for patent specifications and specific document references for prosecution history statements. The platform uses advanced document analysis to locate relevant passages supporting each construction and formats citations according to USPTO and Bluebook standards. All citations are verifiable and ready for court filing, though we recommend attorney review as part of your quality control process.