Creating patent infringement analysis reports is extraordinarily time-consuming, requiring attorneys to manually map each claim element to accused product features across dozens of pages. Building comprehensive claim charts, researching claim construction precedents, and analyzing the doctrine of equivalents can take 8+ hours per patent, delaying critical litigation decisions.
Patent infringement analysis requires meticulous element-by-element comparison of patent claims against accused products, demanding deep technical understanding and precise legal analysis. Creating comprehensive claim charts, conducting claim construction, and evaluating both literal infringement and doctrine of equivalents typically takes attorneys 40+ hours per patent. Missing critical limitations or misapplying legal standards can result in flawed litigation strategy and costly mistakes.
CaseMark automates patent infringement analysis by generating detailed reports with element-by-element claim charts, claim construction analysis, and validity assessments. The AI applies Phillips claim construction principles, analyzes literal infringement and doctrine of equivalents, identifies prosecution history estoppel issues, and provides strategic recommendations. Reduce 40 hours of manual analysis to 25 minutes while ensuring comprehensive coverage of all claim limitations.
This workflow is applicable across multiple practice areas and use cases
Patent infringement analysis is critical for evaluating licensing opportunities, determining royalty rates, and assessing the strength of patent portfolios during license negotiations.
IP licensing attorneys need to analyze potential infringement scenarios to structure licensing agreements, determine fair market value, and advise clients on whether to license or litigate.
During M&A due diligence, patent infringement analysis helps assess IP-related risks, potential liabilities, and the validity of target company patent portfolios.
M&A attorneys need to evaluate whether target companies' products infringe third-party patents or if their own patents are being infringed, as this directly impacts valuation and deal structure.
VC and PE investors require patent infringement analysis during investment due diligence to assess freedom-to-operate risks and the defensibility of portfolio companies' IP assets.
Investors need to evaluate whether startups face infringement risks that could threaten their business model or if their patents provide genuine competitive advantages worth the investment.
A claim chart is a structured comparison that maps each element of a patent claim to corresponding features in an accused product or process. It provides element-by-element analysis showing whether each limitation is met literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, with specific citations to technical evidence. Claim charts are essential tools in patent litigation for demonstrating infringement or non-infringement to courts, juries, and opposing counsel.
The doctrine of equivalents allows a finding of infringement even when the accused product doesn't literally meet every claim limitation, if the differences are insubstantial. Courts apply the function-way-result test, asking whether the accused feature performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result. However, prosecution history estoppel may limit this doctrine where claims were narrowed during prosecution, and it cannot be applied to vitiate entire claim limitations.
At minimum, you need the complete patent document with claims and specification, plus technical documentation of the accused product such as specifications, manuals, or schematics. Ideally, you should also include the patent's prosecution history (file wrapper) to inform claim construction, any prior art references for validity analysis, and detailed technical reports or reverse engineering studies. The more comprehensive your documentation, the more thorough and defensible the infringement analysis will be.
Traditional manual preparation of a comprehensive patent infringement analysis with detailed claim charts typically requires 40-60 hours of attorney time, depending on claim complexity and the number of accused products. This includes claim construction research, element-by-element mapping, doctrine of equivalents analysis, and validity assessment. CaseMark reduces this to approximately 25 minutes by automating the analysis while maintaining the rigor required for litigation use.
Claim construction is the process of determining the proper meaning and scope of patent claim terms, which is the critical first step in any infringement analysis. Under Phillips v. AWH Corp., courts give claim terms their ordinary meaning as understood by persons of skill in the art, informed primarily by the patent specification and prosecution history. Claim construction often determines the outcome of infringement cases because even small differences in how terms are interpreted can mean the difference between infringement and non-infringement.