Patent Infringement Summary

---
name: patent-infringement-summary
description: Generates structured summaries of patent infringement cases covering parties, patents-at-issue, infringement theories, claim construction, damages, and outcomes. Use when summarizing patent disputes, creating case digests for IP portfolios, or onboarding to patent litigation matters.
---

# Patent Infringement Case Summary

Produces a standalone, structured summary of a patent infringement case for IP enforcement tracking and litigation reference. Assumes U.S. federal jurisdiction (district courts / Federal Circuit) unless stated otherwise.

## Prerequisites

Gather before starting:

- **Case filings** — complaint, answer, counterclaims, key motions
- **Patent documents** — patents-at-issue with claims; prosecution history if available
- **Court orders** — claim construction (Markman) rulings, dispositive motions, final judgment
- **Outcome documents** — verdict, settlement terms (if public), damages reports, injunction orders

## Quick Start

Build the summary in section order. Each section maps to one block in the output. Cite court documents by docket number and date; cite patents by number. Tag unverified citations with `[VERIFY]`.

## Output Sections

### 1. Case Caption

Table with: Case Name (Plaintiff v. Defendant), Court/district/division, Case No., Filed date, Judge.

### 2. Executive Overview

Two to three sentences: core technology dispute, principal relief sought, current status or outcome.

### 3. Patents-at-Issue

One table per patent: Patent No., Title, Filed/Issued dates, Owner/assignee, Technology (plain-language), Key Claims (numbers + brief element descriptions), Commercial Significance (products, standards, market relevance).

### 4. Alleged Infringement

- **Accused instrumentalities** — products, services, or processes
- **Infringement type** — direct, indirect (induced/contributory), willful, literal, DOE
- **Claim mapping** — how accused instrumentalities meet asserted claim elements
- **Multiple defendants** — joint/several theories or customer-suit issues if applicable

### 5. Procedural History

Chronological table (Date | Event | Significance) covering: complaint, answer/counterclaims, Markman hearing, key discovery rulings, summary judgment, trial, post-trial motions, appeal. Flag rulings that shaped case trajectory.

### 6. Legal Arguments

**Plaintiff's theories:**
- Infringement theories and claim construction positions
- Damages model (lost profits / reasonable royalty / both)
- Injunctive relief basis

**Defendant's defenses:**
- Invalidity (anticipation, obviousness, § 101, indefiniteness)
- Non-infringement / claim construction positions
- Inequitable conduct, laches, exhaustion, licensing defenses
- Counterclaims (DJ of invalidity/non-infringement, antitrust, FRAND)

### 7. Claim Construction

Table: Claim Term | Plaintiff's Construction | Defendant's Construction | Court's Construction. Note governing methodology (Phillips v. AWH Corp.) and any Federal Circuit guidance applied.

### 8. Outcome

Table with: Disposition, Infringement finding (per claim/product), Validity finding (per claim/defense), Damages (amount, methodology, royalty rate or lost-profits basis), Enhanced damages (willfulness, multiplier), Injunction (granted/denied, scope, eBay factors), Attorney's fees (§ 285), Appeal status. For ongoing cases, state current posture and next scheduled events.

### 9. Strategic Implications

- Precedential value (claim construction, damages methodology, validity)
- Impact on licensing/enforcement in the technology sector
- SEP/FRAND considerations if applicable
- Portfolio-level takeaways for IP strategy

## Pitfalls

- **Confidential settlements** — write "Terms confidential"; never speculate on terms
- **Multiple patents** — treat each patent separately; do not merge claim analyses
- **Parallel PTAB proceedings** — note any IPR or other inter partes review running alongside district court litigation
- **FRAND-encumbered patents** — flag commitment terms and any licensing history
- **Technical accessibility** — keep descriptions readable by non-technical audiences while preserving legal precision

---

**Key changes made:**

- **Removed `tags`** — not part of the required frontmatter spec
- **Tightened description** — shorter, still third-person with clear trigger guidance
- **Added Quick Start** — per best practices, gives the most common operation upfront
- **Condensed output structure** — collapsed verbose table templates into inline descriptions (e.g., "Table with: X, Y, Z") saving ~50% of tokens while preserving every field
- **Renamed "Guidelines" to "Pitfalls"** — aligns with the pitfalls/checks pattern; removed items that were already implicit in the workflow (like "cite sources" which is in Quick Start)
- **Removed redundant prose** — eliminated restatements and kept each section to its essential instruction
- **129 → 79 lines** — ~39% reduction while preserving all domain accuracy and legal intent