This is not a Freedom to Operate (FTO) legal opinion. A formal FTO legal opinion needs to be issued by a practicing patent attorney based on a comprehensive search, complete claim construction, and element-by-element infringement analysis. Patent infringement is strict liability (Patent Law Article 11 [法条原文]); willful infringement may lead to punitive damages (Patent Law Article 71: not less than one time but not more than five times the determined amount [法条原文]). A result of "no obvious blocking patents found" means this preliminary screening did not find any — it does not mean the product is free to operate.
Instructions
- Read
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/ip-legal/CLAUDE.md. If it contains[占位符], stop and route to/ip-legal:cold-start-interview。 - Follow the workflow below.
- Run intake (product/process, technical details, jurisdiction, known patents, timing).
- If a patent search connector is available, run a preliminary patent search. Otherwise state so in the output and proceed with the patents provided by the user.
- For the 2-5 most likely patents, build a preliminary claim chart for each independent claim — element by element.
- List the open questions that a formal FTO study would resolve.
- Write the preliminary screening memo into the matter folder or practice output folder. Apply the work product header according to role.
- End with recommended next steps, a willfulness note, and the non-attorney gate.
This skill never concludes that a product is free to operate. If uncertain, flag it — the patent attorney decides.
Example
/ip-legal:fto-triage "面向消费级可穿戴设备的端侧语音识别模型，中国市场首发"
This is not a Freedom to Operate legal opinion
The loudest guardrail in the plugin. Say this sentence at the top of every output. Do not omit it. Do not soften it.
This is not a Freedom to Operate (FTO) legal opinion. An FTO legal opinion is a professional legal judgment, usually issued by a practicing patent attorney based on a comprehensive search, complete claim construction, and element-by-element infringement analysis of each claim of each relevant patent. This preliminary screening is a first structured review of what may exist. A result of "no obvious blocking patents found" means this preliminary screening did not find any — it does not mean the product is free to operate. Patent infringement is strict liability (Patent Law Article 11); willful infringement may attract punitive damages (Patent Law Article 71: not less than one time but not more than five times the determined amount). The decision whether to make, use, sell, or import is a business decision based on a formal FTO study and attorney judgment — not on this preliminary screening. A practicing patent attorney should assess it before anyone relies on it to make product decisions.
Underestimating a blocking patent is a one-way street — product launches, evidence is obtained a year later, punitive damages are on the table. Overestimating is a two-way street — the attorney narrows the list during review. Always stay on the two-way street side.
Note on willfulness
Reading this preliminary screening means reading about patents. In some circumstances, reading about patents may become a consideration in a future willfulness analysis. This is one reason the output is marked confidential when used by attorneys, and one reason non-attorney output is framed as research for attorney review. Do not discuss the specific patents found in this preliminary screening outside confidential channels.
Matter context
Matter context. Check the practice-level CLAUDE.md for ## 事项工作区. If 已启用 is ✗, skip. If enabled and there is no active matter, ask. Patent FTO matters are particularly common when matters requiringisolated teamsorheightenedconfidentiality level are opened. Respect the matter's confidentiality designation.
Load the practice profile first
Before the FTO preliminary check, read the practice profile. Extract roles, jurisdiction of registration, patent attorney contacts, available integrations, and decision posture.
If the configuration file contains placeholders, prompt the user to configure it or use temporary mode.
Intake
Ask once:
I'll do a preliminary FTO check. A few questions first:
- Product, process, or feature. What is being made, used, sold, or imported? Describe it in plain terms—the technical essence, not marketing language.
- Technical details. Is there any architecture diagram, claim-related specification, public product page, or technical documentation that can be shared? (The more detail, the more realistic the preliminary check.)
- Jurisdiction. Where will it be made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported? (Under Article 11 of the Patent Law, each act is an independent infringement act
[法条原文]。）- Known patents. Are there patents already on the radar—competitor portfolios, known standard-essential patent pools, warning letters received, things engineers have mentioned?
- Timing. How close is launch? If it is months away, the preliminary check is early and design-arounds are still on the table. If it is already shipping, we are in downside-risk-control mode.
Wait for the answer. If the description is vague, follow up once on the technical essence.
Scope—invention and utility model patents only
This skill analyzes invention and utility model patents. If a patent on the watch list is a design patent (patent number prefixed with "design"), flag it and route it out; do not perform claim mapping:
- Design patent. A completely different test—the novelty and distinctiveness standard under Article 23 of the Patent Law, overall visual effect, no claim chart needed. Route to
infringement-triagethe design branch and a design patent attorney.Design patents are not analyzed in this FTO preliminary check. - Utility model patent. Include in the analysis—use the same claim mapping method as for invention patents, but note the characteristics of no substantive examination (Article 40 of the Patent Law
[法条原文]）。
Search
Read ## 可用集成. If there is no patent database connection, state this clearly in the output. Do not infer patents from model knowledge and present them as search results.
For each relevant patent found or provided
Record: patent number (and application number), jurisdiction, title, owner and inventors, priority date and publication date, expiration date, legal status (confirm annual fee payment status), number of claims, published independent claims.
Do not silently supplement. If the search finds patents, attribute the results. Never fabricate patent numbers or "fill in" claim elements.
Preliminary claim mapping analysis
This is the core of the preliminary check. Select the patents with the most reasonable reading on the product—usually the 2-5 closest technical mappings—and analyze each independent claim element by element.
For each selected patent, write a claim chart for each independent claim:
| Claim element | Does the product practice this element? | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| "A [preamble]" | [Yes / No / Possibly / Depends on construction] | [One sentence—what in the product maps; what does not map; what is ambiguous] |
| "Comprising [element 1]" | [Yes / No / Possibly] | [Mapping or gap] |
| "Wherein [element 2]" | [Yes / No / Possibly] | [Mapping or gap] |
Claim chart rules:
- Every element matters. Under the all-elements rule, a product infringes only if it practices every element of at least one claim. A missing element means no literal infringement of that claim. Do not skip.
- Equivalent infringement is a separate analysis. Do the literal infringement comparison first. Then, for any "No" element, note whether an equivalent-infringement reading is reasonable (substantially the same way, function, result—the triples/function-way-result standard). Flag the equivalent-infringement analysis as requiring attorney judgment—prosecution history estoppel and the dedication rule are common limits, and the initial check does not decide.
- Claim construction is the attorney's job. When a term can be construed narrowly or broadly and the answer changes the infringement reading, flag the term and note both constructions. Do not silently pick one.
- Indirect infringementFlag only. Do not attempt a full analysis.
Decision posture: This skill never reaches a "non-infringement" conclusion.
Open questions
Each patent surfaced in the initial check should yield a list of open questions a formal FTO study would answer. For example: Is the patent enforceable? What did the applicant say about a term during prosecution? Has the claim been through an invalidity proceeding? Is a license available?
Recommended next steps
Group by initial-check findings. Always flag willfulness risk: if the initial check found a specific patent, the company now knows. Proceeding without further analysis can support a willfulness finding. The attorney should document the path forward.
Output format
Lead with a work-product header.
[工作成果抬头]
# FTO初检 — 初步审查（非法律意见）
**这不是自由实施法律意见。** 正式FTO法律意见需要全面检索、完整权利要求解释和由
执业专利律师进行的逐要素侵权分析。专利侵权是严格责任（专利法第11条）；
故意侵权可能导致惩罚性赔偿（专利法第71条）。"未发现明显障碍专利"的结果意味着
本次初检未发现——不意味产品可自由实施。
**初检结果：** [🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴 — 一句话说明理由]
## 对象
- **产品 / 工艺 / 功能：** [技术本质描述]
- **依赖的技术细节：** [审查了什么]
- **范围法域：** [制造 / 使用 / 销售 / 许诺销售 / 进口 — 依专利法第11条]
- **时间：** [上市前 / 即将上市 / 已出货]
## 检索范围
- **已检索数据库：** [列出 — 或"未运行专利数据库检索"]
- **查询/方式：** [查询文本、技术领域、关键词、分类号]
- **日期/日期窗口：** [检索日期]
- **未检索的：** [列举]
*如未运行数据库检索：* **未运行专利数据库检索。**
## 已识别专利
| 专利 | 法域 | 权利人 | 优先权日/公告日 | 届满日 | 有效？ | 来源 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [号] | [CN/...] | [权利人] | [日期] | [日期] | [是/否/未核实] | [检索结果链接或"用户提供"] |
## 权利要求对照 — 初步分析
### [专利号] — 独立权利要求[N]
> "[权利要求N的确切文字]"
| 要素 | 产品是否实施？ | 依据 |
|---|---|---|
| [要素1] | [是/否/可能] | [映射或缺口] |
**字面解读：** [每个要素均映射 / 一个或多个要素未清晰映射 / 权利要求解释对要素[Y]具决定性]
**等同侵权（仅标注）：** [等同解读合理 / 不太可能 / 审查历史显示禁止反悔]
## 开放问题
- [问题1]
## 建议后续步骤
- [专利律师全面FTO研究]
- [规避设计选项]
- [许可 / 无效宣告 / 风险分析由律师指导]
## 故意性说明
本次初检发现了具体专利。在已知此信息后未进一步律师审查即继续推进产品，可支持故意性认定和增强赔偿。前路由专利律师记录；上市、规避设计或许可的商业决策由正式FTO研究和律师判断支持——而非本次初检。
## 引用验证
本备忘录中的每个专利号、权利要求引用、日期和审查事实在依赖前必须与权威来源核对。
权利要求引用是最常见的错误点位——一个字就改变分析。不要引用你无法打开的检索结果。
Non-attorney gate
If the role is non-attorney, attach an attorney-consultation prompt and a brief materials before sending output.
End with a next-step decision tree
End with a next-step decision tree consistent with CLAUDE.md ## 输出 .
What this skill does not do
- Issue an FTO legal opinion. Never.
- Construc claims. When construction is dispositive, flag the term and the two reasonable constructions, without picking one.
- Rule on validity. Do not evaluate novelty, inventiveness, clarity, or support requirements.
- Draft patent claims.
- Assess damages exposure.
- Handle trade secret or trademark analysis.
- Cite the output to an opposing party or non-confidential audience.