patent-analysis

Patent Analysis

Positioning

Conduct traceable preliminary analysis of patent materials, distinguishing material facts, analytical inferences, and legal judgments. The default jurisdiction is China; when other jurisdictions are involved, first confirm the applicable law and re-verify the rules.

This skill does not directly generate formal legal opinions. Any litigation, invalidation, licensing, transaction, listing, or product finalization decision requires review by a patent attorney or patent agent in conjunction with the complete materials.

Core Workflow

1. Complete the input gate first

Confirm the following information:

• Task type: single patent summary, multi-patent comparison, infringement comparison, stability, FTO, design-around, value assessment, equivalence analysis, invalidation response, or visualization
• Jurisdiction and analysis baseline date
• Patent type, patent number, current legal status, and valid claim text
• The claims to be analyzed in this instance or that the right holder intends to assert; when multiple independent claims exist, list them one by one
• The specific version of the product or method, the implementing acts, and the sources of evidence
• Whether the description, drawings, prosecution file, invalidation decisions, family members, and prior art have been obtained
• Whether the legal baseline for this instance has been verified as of the analysis baseline date, and whether there have been updates to guidelines, judicial interpretations, valid claims, term compensation, license recordals, or ownership

In the following circumstances, stop definitive ratings and output only material gaps and a supplementation checklist:

• The jurisdiction, patent legal status, or valid claim text has not been confirmed
• The claims to be analyzed in this instance have not been specified
• The product version or necessary technical facts cannot be matched
• Only the abstract is available, lacking the claims and necessary description content
• For FTO, the target jurisdiction, implementing acts, product version, search cutoff date, or legal status baseline has not been provided, the legal status and valid claims of candidate patents have not been verified, or review has not been completed after a legal source and status refresh trigger

2. Select the scenario and read the corresponding files

#	Scenario	Must read
1	Single patent technical point extraction	references/01-single-patent-summary.md
2	Multi-patent comparison	references/02-multi-patent-comparison.md
3	Product-patent infringement comparison	references/03-infringement-comparison.md
4	Stability/invalidation risk analysis	references/04-validity-analysis.md
5	FTO analysis	references/05-fto-analysis.md
6	Design-around	references/06-design-around.md
7	Patent value assessment	references/07-patent-valuation.md
8	Equivalent infringement analysis	references/08-doctrine-of-equivalents.md
9	Invalidation declaration response	references/09-invalidation-defense.md
10	Visualization output	references/10-visualization.md

Before starting professional judgment, also read references/00-legal-basis.md, and according to references/11-2026-guideline-impact.md verify the guideline impact, legal source version, time limits, and conclusion boundaries of the current scenario. Do not read only template titles or examples.

Legal Source Register config/legal-source-register.json It is a machine-readable baseline for the version, clause groups, 23 guideline amendments, ten-scenario impacts, and FTO update trigger conditions. Public output only states the names of legal sources and specific clauses, without attaching court or administrative authority verification URLs. Protection scope, comprehensive coverage, equivalence, invalidity, and FTO are all applied in combination according to the clause arrays in the registration table, and must not degrade into a single provision.

3. Analyze according to the four-layer model

First layer: Claim selection and interpretation

1. Use the claims asserted by the right holder or selected for the task as the unit of analysis, and do not by default look only at claim 1.
2. Determine the technical solution separately for each independent claim; for dependent claims, analyze after merging their additional features with the entire chain of references.
3. Interpret terms based on the claim text, in combination with the description and drawings, related claims, prosecution file, and effective validity confirmation documents.
4. Record the source of interpretation; when two reasonable interpretations exist, present them side by side and do not arbitrarily choose the version favorable to either party.

Second layer: Comparison of technical features and evidence

Break each analyzed claim into technical features that can be compared independently, and use a unified evidence status:

Status	Meaning	Can it count as covered
A-已证实	Directly supported by a physical object, notarized materials, drawings, reliable technical materials, or confirmation by both parties	Yes
B-初步支持	Supported by images, videos, promotional materials, or indirect materials, but still requiring verification	No
C-不相同/缺失	The evidence shows that the corresponding feature does not exist or that a substantive difference exists	No
D-无法判断	Insufficient materials, unclear subject matter, or key disagreement in interpretation	No

Conclusion gate:

• If any essential feature is C-不相同/缺失, regardless of whether B/Dalso exists, the claim does not support literal comprehensive coverage; disclose item by item the B/D evidence gaps, and then determine whether an equivalence analysis needs to be conducted for the C features.
• Only when there is no C, but any essential feature is B-初步支持 or D-无法判断 , may it be written that "the evidence is insufficient, and it cannot currently be determined whether there is comprehensive coverage."
• Only when all essential features are A-已证实may it be written that "the existing evidence preliminarily supports literal fall within the claim."
• Do not convert "presumed," "may exist," or "the product should have" into the number already covered.

Third layer: Equivalence analysis

Only for corresponding technical features that are not literally identical, analyze item by item the means, function, effect, and whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could associate them without inventive effort at the time the accused infringing act occurred, while also examining prosecution history estoppel, claim publicity, and other limitations. Read references/08-doctrine-of-equivalents.md。

Fourth layer: Validity, defenses, and procedural impact

Separately list potentially relevant issues such as prior art/prior design defenses, prior use rights, lawful sources, prosecution history estoppel, invalidation declarations, and abuse of rights. Do not write "may be raised" as "will necessarily be raised," and do not use unsourced probabilities or fixed case timelines.

4. Gate for execution legal sources and status refresh

1. Record the registration table baseline ID, verification date, analysis reference date, and applicable jurisdiction.
2. Check the legal source effectiveness status, the guideline implementation version, the revision status of judicial interpretations, the effective claim version in the target jurisdiction, and the legal status inquiry date.
3. For FTO, design-around, and valuation, it is also necessary to verify patent term compensation, license recordation, ownership, and changes in the product/implementing acts.
4. If the analysis reference date is later than the verification date, or if there are changes in the law, guidelines, claims, legal status, ownership, licenses, product versions, implementing acts, jurisdictions, or the search cutoff date, refresh the relevant baseline first.
5. When the refresh is incomplete, stop definitive ratings and output only a supplementation or verification checklist.

Reasoning and Citation Rules

• Mark item by item 材料事实、分析推断、法律判断。
• When citing patent content, indicate the claim number, specification paragraph, figure number, or prosecution file page number.
• When citing the law, record the full name of the legal source or references/00-legal-basis.md the abbreviation used in, the specific provisions, the issuing authority, the status of effect, and the verification date; public reports do not require links to court or administrative agency web pages, and internal search records are kept separately.
• When citing a case, record the case number, court, judgment date, and judgment status; cases that cannot be verified do not enter the formal analysis.
• Do not use placeholder case numbers to pass off as real cases; cases that cannot be verified do not enter the formal analysis.
• Do not output invalid probabilities, infringement probabilities, or value indices that lack a data model and source support.
• Procedural deadlines are based on the notices actually received by the parties and the current rules; the report shall also record the service date and the calculation basis.

Materials and Confidentiality

• Process only the patent, product, and case materials necessary to complete the task; before output, remove irrelevant personal information, client names, undisclosed product parameters, and trade secrets.
• Without user authorization, do not send undisclosed materials to external services; when OCR, searching, or downloading is truly needed, first explain the networking and data processing boundaries of the corresponding capability.
• Public examples in the report use generalized information and do not use combinations of real clients, projects, or case numbers that can be traced back.

Output Structure

The default report contains at least:

1. Task, jurisdiction, reference date, and scope of use
2. Material list and gaps
3. Basic patent information and sources of legal status
4. Analyzed claims and reasons for selection
5. Term explanations and sources
6. Item-by-item table of technical features - product - evidence
7. Literal coverage and equivalence analysis
8. Stability, defenses, and procedural risks
9. Layered conclusions: established matters, matters to be verified, conditional judgments
10. Recommendations for follow-up evidence collection, searching, and manual review
11. Index of legal sources and materials

External documents or formal opinions must not directly reuse template conclusions; facts, evidence, legal sources, and conclusion wording must first be reviewed by professionals.

Quality Review

Checks before delivery:

• The jurisdiction, reference date, legal status, and valid claims have been verified
• Multiple independent claims and asserted dependent claims have not been omitted
• Each technical feature has a corresponding product item, evidence source, and evidence status
• B/D The status has not been counted into full coverage
• The equivalence analysis is a feature-by-feature judgment, not an overall similarity judgment
• Case numbers, legal provisions, deadlines, and statistical statements are all traceable
• The legal source baseline ID and verification date have been recorded, and the impact of the 2026 guidelines, claim versions, term compensation, and license recordation have been checked according to the scenario
• The scope of protection, full coverage, equivalence, invalidity, or FTO conclusions list multiple specific provisions that apply jointly, without attached court or administrative agency verification URLs
• The preliminary analysis is not written as a court conclusion or formal legal opinion
• Client, case, unpublished product, and trade secret information has been handled under the principle of minimum necessity
• Material gaps, adverse factors, and manual review points have been listed

Coordination with Other Skills

Skill	Coordination Method
patent-download	Obtain the patent documents specified by the user and traceable sources
legal-ocr / mineru-ocr	Convert scanned copies into searchable text and check back against the original pages
yuandian-law-search	Verify Chinese statutes, judicial interpretations, and cases, and do not treat search summaries directly as conclusions
legal-proposal-generator	Generate a legal service plan based on analysis results that have already been reviewed
legal-visualization	Generate high-fidelity charts from data that has been reviewed
md2word	Convert the final Markdown draft into Word

Dependencies

System Dependencies

The text analysis process of this skill has no additional system dependencies. Scanned PDFs, patent downloads, legal searches, and high-fidelity rendering respectively use the corresponding skills in the table above.

Python Packages

This skill has no third-party Python package dependencies. Maintainers first run python3 scripts/check_legal_sources.py --expected-version 2.2.0 to validate the legal source registry, then run python3 scripts/validate_skill.py --repo-root ../.. to perform a full static consistency check.