IP Infringement Analysis
Generates an element-by-element infringement memorandum covering rights identification, type-specific analysis, defenses, and remedies quantification.
Prerequisites
- IP registrations/filings — patents (with claims), trademark registrations, copyright registrations, or trade secret identification documents
- Accused instrumentality — product specs, screenshots, source code, marketing materials, or service descriptions
- Prosecution history (patents) — file wrapper, claim amendments, examiner rejections
- Relevant agreements — licenses, NDAs, employment/non-compete agreements, assignments
- Correspondence — cease-and-desist letters, licensing negotiations, admissions
- Jurisdiction and procedural posture — forum, statute of limitations status
If any prerequisite is missing, pause and ask — do not assume or fill gaps.
Quick Start
- Identify the IP right(s) at issue (Step 1)
- Characterize the accused activity (Step 2)
- Apply the type-specific framework: Patent (A), Trademark (B), Copyright (C), or Trade Secret (D) (Step 3)
- Assess defenses and vulnerabilities (Step 4)
- Evaluate available remedies (Step 5)
- State overall assessment with confidence level (Step 6)
Analyze each IP type separately when multiple types are at issue.
Output Structure
Step 1: IP Rights Identification
| Field | Detail |
|---|
| IP Type | Patent / Trademark / Copyright / Trade Secret |
| Registration/Application No. | |
| Filing/Priority Date | |
| Owner/Claimant | |
| Key Claims/Mark/Work Description | |
| Status | Active / Expired / Pending |
Step 2: Accused Activity
| Field | Detail |
|---|
| Accused party | |
| Product/service/activity | |
| Date of first use | |
| Geographic scope | |
| Commercial context | |
Step 3: Type-Specific Analysis
Apply the applicable framework(s):
A. Patent Infringement
- Claim construction — construe disputed terms under Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) [VERIFY]
- Literal infringement — all-elements rule, limitation-by-limitation comparison using claim chart below
- Doctrine of equivalents — function-way-result or insubstantial differences test; check prosecution history estoppel per Festo [VERIFY]
- Means-plus-function — identify § 112(f) limitations, map corresponding structure
- Indirect infringement — induced (§ 271(b)): knowledge + specific intent; contributory (§ 271(c)): material component, no substantial non-infringing use
- Validity challenges — anticipation (§ 102), obviousness (§ 103), enablement/written description (§ 112)
Claim Chart:
| Claim Element | Accused Feature | Literal? | DOE? | Notes |
|---|
| [Limitation 1] | | Y/N | Y/N | |
| [Limitation 2] | | Y/N | Y/N | |
A single missing limitation defeats literal infringement on that claim.
B. Trademark Infringement
Identify the correct circuit's likelihood-of-confusion test (Polaroid, Sleekcraft, Lapp, etc.) and apply:
| Factor | Analysis | Weight |
|---|
| Similarity of marks (sight, sound, meaning, commercial impression) | | |
| Relatedness of goods/services | | |
| Strength of senior mark (inherent + acquired distinctiveness) | | |
| Evidence of actual confusion | | |
| Defendant's intent | | |
| Consumer sophistication | | |
| Channels of trade / marketing convergence | | |
| Likelihood of expansion into related markets | | |
If famous mark: assess dilution by blurring or tarnishment (§ 1125(c)). Evaluate defenses: descriptive fair use, nominative fair use, First Amendment.
C. Copyright Infringement
- Ownership — valid registration, chain of title
- Access — direct or circumstantial evidence
- Substantial similarity — extrinsic test (objective, filterable elements) + intrinsic test (subjective, ordinary observer)
- Idea/expression filtration — exclude ideas, facts, scènes à faire, merger doctrine elements before applying substantial similarity
- De minimis — whether copying falls below actionable threshold
Fair Use (17 U.S.C. § 107):
| Factor | Analysis | Favors |
|---|
| Purpose and character (transformative?) | | P / D |
| Nature of copyrighted work | | P / D |
| Amount and substantiality used | | P / D |
| Market effect | | P / D |
D. Trade Secret Misappropriation
- Identification — describe each claimed trade secret with specificity
- Qualification — independent economic value from secrecy + reasonable secrecy measures
- Misappropriation method — improper means (theft, breach of duty, espionage) or breach of confidentiality obligation
- Inevitable disclosure — applicable only in jurisdictions recognizing the doctrine; requires high similarity between roles
- Restrictive covenants — NDA/non-compete scope, enforceability, temporal/geographic limits
Step 4: Defenses & Vulnerabilities
| Defense | Applicability | Risk Level |
|---|
| Statute of limitations / laches | | High/Med/Low |
| Estoppel (prosecution, equitable, licensee) | | |
| Exhaustion / first sale | | |
| Independent creation / reverse engineering | | |
| Invalidity / unenforceability | | |
| Fair use / nominative use | | |
| Unclean hands | | |
Step 5: Remedies Assessment
| Remedy | Availability | Estimated Range |
|---|
| Lost profits | | |
| Reasonable royalty | | |
| Disgorgement of profits | | |
| Statutory damages | | |
| Enhanced/treble damages (willfulness) | | |
| Attorneys' fees (exceptional case) | | |
| Preliminary injunction (eBay factors) | | |
| Permanent injunction | | |
All damages estimates are preliminary — validate with economic expert analysis.
Step 6: Overall Assessment
| Item | Assessment |
|---|
| Infringement likelihood | Strong / Moderate / Weak |
| Strongest arguments for infringement | |
| Greatest vulnerabilities | |
| Recommended course of action | Litigate / Settle / License / Monitor |
| Settlement valuation range | |
Do not state ultimate legal conclusions without qualifying confidence level.
Troubleshooting
| Issue | Resolution |
|---|
| Uncertain claim construction | Flag ambiguous terms explicitly; present competing constructions with likelihood assessment |
| Circuit split on LOC factors | Identify the controlling circuit; note split and flag if forum selection could change outcome |
| Mixed literal/DOE results across claims | Analyze each claim independently; a single claim suffices for infringement |
| Incomplete accused instrumentality info | Note gaps; qualify analysis as preliminary; request missing specs before finalizing |
| Foreign IP rights implicated | Flag when Paris Convention, Berne Convention, or TRIPS may apply; analyze domestic and foreign rights separately |
Guidelines
- Cite controlling authority from the relevant jurisdiction; flag persuasive-only authority from other circuits
- Use
[VERIFY] for any citation not confirmed against source documents
- Flag privilege, work-product, or ethical issues (e.g., conflict of interest in analyzing a current client's competitor)
- Output is draft work product — include explicit notation that it does not constitute legal advice
