Patent Summary

Name: Patent Summary
Author: lev-os

ASecurity

Generates structured, prosecution-ready summaries of patent applications covering bibliographic data, claims analysis, and strategic observations. Use when summarizing patent filings, preparing for prosecution, conducting portfolio review, licensing negotiations, or freedom-to-operate analysis.

22 stars

0 votes

0 copies

0 views

Added 9/20/2026

documentationgo

Security Analysis

A100/100

Scanned 9/20/2026

Install to Claude Code

$npx -y skills add lev-os/agents --skill patent-summary --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Patent Summary?

Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.

[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/lev-os-patent-summary/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/lev-os-patent-summary)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.

Download Zip

Files

SKILL.md

---
name: patent-summary
description: Generates structured, prosecution-ready summaries of patent applications covering bibliographic data, claims analysis, and strategic observations. Use when summarizing patent filings, preparing for prosecution, conducting portfolio review, licensing negotiations, or freedom-to-operate analysis.
---

# Patent Application Summary

Produces a structured summary of a patent application for prosecution, licensing, litigation, or portfolio management. Requires the application document (specification, claims, abstract, drawings) and any priority/related filings.

## Quick Start

1. Gather the patent application and any related filings
2. Identify target audience (prosecution, licensing, litigation, portfolio)
3. Generate the summary following the output structure below
4. Flag prosecution risks and strategic observations
5. Review against checks at the bottom

## Output Structure

### 1. Executive Overview

Two to three sentences: invention essence, technical field, broadest claim scope.

### 2. Bibliographic Data

| Field | Extract |
|---|---|
| Application No. | — |
| Filing Date | — |
| Inventor(s) | — |
| Assignee | — |
| Priority Claims | — |
| Related Applications | — |
| Technical Field | — |

### 3. Background & Problem

- Problem the invention addresses
- Key prior art cited; how applicant distinguishes
- Novelty and non-obviousness positioning

### 4. Invention Description

- How it works — components, steps, or architecture
- Core innovations vs. prior art
- Key embodiments with practical applications
- Write accessibly for non-specialist attorneys; maintain technical precision

### 5. Drawings & Figures

| Figure | Description |
|---|---|
| Fig. N | — |

Summarize each referenced figure. Omit unreferenced figures.

### 6. Claims Analysis

| Claim | Type | Scope Summary |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Independent | — |
| N | Independent | — |
| Key dependents | Dependent | — |

- **Total claims**: [count] — **Independent**: [count]
- **Format flags**: Note means-plus-function (§ 112(f)), Beauregard, or Jepson claims

### 7. Strategic Observations

**Scope & Strength**

- Claim breadth assessment
- Design-around vulnerabilities
- Commercially significant dependent claim narrowings

**Prosecution Risk Flags**

| Issue | Risk | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Enablement (§ 112(a)) | Low/Med/High | — |
| Written Description | Low/Med/High | — |
| Indefiniteness (§ 112(b)) | Low/Med/High | — |
| Prior Art Overlap | Low/Med/High | — |

**Commercial & Portfolio**

- Licensing or FTO considerations
- Recommended next steps

## Checks

- Cite specific section headings, claim numbers, and figure references throughout
- Target 1–3 pages; balance comprehensiveness with conciseness
- Use precise IP terminology; keep descriptions accessible to non-specialist attorneys
- Flag potentially relevant uncited prior art with `[NOTE]`
- Do not opine on patentability — present observations only
- For continuations/divisionals, note parent filing relationship
- Default jurisdiction: U.S. (USPTO) unless specified otherwise

---

Shall I try writing this to the file again?

Attribution

lev-os

View source More from lev-os →

SSkills DirectorySkills Directory

Your tool, in front of Claude Code builders.

3 founder slots · $299/mo · GSC-verified traffic · sponsors can never buy grades.

See placements

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!

--- name: patent-summary description: Generates structured, prosecution-ready summaries of patent applications covering bibliographic data, claims analysis, and strategic observations. Use when summarizing patent filings, preparing for prosecution, conducting portfolio review, licensing negotiations, or freedom-to-operate analysis. --- # Patent Application Summary Produces a structured summary of a patent application for prosecution, licensing, litigation, or portfolio management. Requires the application document (specification, claims, abstract, drawings) and any priority/related filings. ## Quick Start 1. Gather the patent application and any related filings 2. Identify target audience (prosecution, licensing, litigation, portfolio) 3. Generate the summary following the output structure below 4. Flag prosecution risks and strategic observations 5. Review against checks at the bottom ## Output Structure ### 1. Executive Overview Two to three sentences: invention essence, technical field, broadest claim scope. ### 2. Bibliographic Data | Field | Extract | |---|---| | Application No. | — | | Filing Date | — | | Inventor(s) | — | | Assignee | — | | Priority Claims | — | | Related Applications | — | | Technical Field | — | ### 3. Background & Problem - Problem the invention addresses - Key prior art cited; how applicant distinguishes - Novelty and non-obviousness positioning ### 4. Invention Description - How it works — components, steps, or architecture - Core innovations vs. prior art - Key embodiments with practical applications - Write accessibly for non-specialist attorneys; maintain technical precision ### 5. Drawings & Figures | Figure | Description | |---|---| | Fig. N | — | Summarize each referenced figure. Omit unreferenced figures. ### 6. Claims Analysis | Claim | Type | Scope Summary | |---|---|---| | 1 | Independent | — | | N | Independent | — | | Key dependents | Dependent | — | - **Total claims**: [count] — **Independent**: [count] - **Format flags**: Note means-plus-function (§ 112(f)), Beauregard, or Jepson claims ### 7. Strategic Observations **Scope & Strength** - Claim breadth assessment - Design-around vulnerabilities - Commercially significant dependent claim narrowings **Prosecution Risk Flags** | Issue | Risk | Notes | |---|---|---| | Enablement (§ 112(a)) | Low/Med/High | — | | Written Description | Low/Med/High | — | | Indefiniteness (§ 112(b)) | Low/Med/High | — | | Prior Art Overlap | Low/Med/High | — | **Commercial & Portfolio** - Licensing or FTO considerations - Recommended next steps ## Checks - Cite specific section headings, claim numbers, and figure references throughout - Target 1–3 pages; balance comprehensiveness with conciseness - Use precise IP terminology; keep descriptions accessible to non-specialist attorneys - Flag potentially relevant uncited prior art with `[NOTE]` - Do not opine on patentability — present observations only - For continuations/divisionals, note parent filing relationship - Default jurisdiction: U.S. (USPTO) unless specified otherwise --- Shall I try writing this to the file again?