biotech-patent-summaries

Summarizes biotech patent families and disputes into litigation-ready intelligence briefs. Trigger when the user provides patent applications, issued patents, PTAB filings, prosecution histories, licensing materials, or litigation documents in biotechnology domains and requests a summary, risk assessment, or FTO analysis.

11 stars

Best use case

biotech-patent-summaries is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.

Summarizes biotech patent families and disputes into litigation-ready intelligence briefs. Trigger when the user provides patent applications, issued patents, PTAB filings, prosecution histories, licensing materials, or litigation documents in biotechnology domains and requests a summary, risk assessment, or FTO analysis.

Teams using biotech-patent-summaries should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.

When to use this skill

  • You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.

When not to use this skill

  • You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
  • You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.

Installation

Claude Code / Cursor / Codex

$curl -o ~/.claude/skills/biotech-patent-summaries/SKILL.md --create-dirs "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/CaseMark/skills/main/skills/legal/biotech-patent-summaries/SKILL.md"

Manual Installation

  1. Download SKILL.md from GitHub
  2. Place it in .claude/skills/biotech-patent-summaries/SKILL.md inside your project
  3. Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill

How biotech-patent-summaries Compares

Feature / Agentbiotech-patent-summariesStandard Approach
Platform SupportNot specifiedLimited / Varies
Context Awareness High Baseline
Installation ComplexityUnknownN/A

Frequently Asked Questions

What does this skill do?

Summarizes biotech patent families and disputes into litigation-ready intelligence briefs. Trigger when the user provides patent applications, issued patents, PTAB filings, prosecution histories, licensing materials, or litigation documents in biotechnology domains and requests a summary, risk assessment, or FTO analysis.

Where can I find the source code?

You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.

SKILL.md Source

# Biotechnology Patent Summaries

Produce a source-grounded intelligence brief on biotech patents and disputes for litigation, portfolio, and executive decisions.

## Quick Start

1. Collect inputs: patent corpus, dispute materials, parties/products map, jurisdiction scope, and clear objective (litigation exposure, licensing, design-around, or FTO).
2. Run the core workflow below.
3. Deliver the output template with uncertainty tags on every analytical assertion.

## Core Workflow

1. **Ingest & normalize** — Gather patent identity, claim sets, prosecution history, and dispute metadata. Normalize dates to ISO format. Define technical terms on first use.
2. **Extract & map claims** — Identify independent claims first, quote critical language verbatim, then map dependents and fallback embodiments.
3. **Analyze validity/infringement** — Test enforceability vectors:
   - §101 eligibility (methods, diagnostics, natural products)
   - §102/103 novelty and obviousness
   - §112 enablement/written description (especially genus claims over biological matter)
4. **Assess procedural & business impact** — Quantify litigation risk (timeline, injunction exposure, claim-construction volatility), cross-jurisdiction differences, and commercial consequences.
5. **Compile deliverable** — Fill the output template; tag every item as confirmed fact, party argument, or analytical assessment.

## Input Capture

| Bucket | Key Fields |
|---|---|
| Patent identity | Patent/app no., family ID, filing/priority/grant dates, assignee |
| Technical scope | Mechanism, target, platform, key molecules/processes |
| Claim set | Independent/dependent claims, types, limitations, embodiments |
| Status | Pending/granted/abandoned, IPR/opposition posture, deadlines |
| Dispute metadata | Court/tribunal, parties, accused products, allegations |
| Procedural calendar | Hearings, motions, claim construction, trial dates (with certainty rating) |
| Strategic posture | Commercial significance, exclusivity, competitor landscape, remedies sought |

## Output Template

```
# [Matter Title]
Current through: [DATE]

## 1) Executive Summary
Three short paragraphs: patent landscape, key legal issues, action recommendations.

## 2) Patent/Dispute Snapshot
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Identifier | |
| Jurisdiction(s) | |
| Parties | |
| Status | |
| Urgency | |

## 3) Claim & Scope Analysis
| Claim # | Text excerpt | Breadth | FTO relevance | Risk flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|

## 4) Validity & Prior-Art Assessment
| Ground | Basis | Record support | Counterargument strength | Probability |
|---|---|---|---|---|

## 5) Infringement Analysis
| Accused product/method | Claim-mapped match | Defense argument space | Exposure |
|---|---|---|---|

## 6) Dispute Timeline
| Date | Event | Forum | Strategic effect |
|---|---|---|---|

## 7) Strategic Recommendations
- [ ] Litigation strategy
- [ ] Licensing / settlement
- [ ] Design-around / alternative pathway
- [ ] Portfolio filing or challenge
- [ ] Regulatory and exclusivity coordination

## 8) Uncertainty Register
Confirmed facts | Documented allegations | Analytical assumptions | Open gaps
```

## Deliverable Rules

- **Citation discipline** — Cite patent numbers, claim/paragraph refs, docket entries; no uncited assertions.
- **Scope discipline** — Label each statement as fact, party argument, or analysis.
- **Technical precision** — Keep scientific language exact; do not oversimplify in ways that change meaning.
- **Jurisdiction tags** — Label every legal standard by jurisdiction and confidence level.
- **Currency** — State explicit "current through" date and stop-line assumptions.

## Pitfalls & Checks

- No legal advice; provide neutral counsel-grade analysis only.
- Default to US jurisdiction unless explicitly labeled otherwise.
- Do not overstate claim scope where specification support is thin.
- Flag missing records as "needs confirmation" — never infer.
- [VERIFY] Confirm current case law before finalizing eligibility/invalidation analysis, especially for biotech diagnostic and sequence-related claims.
- [VERIFY] Cross-check AIA first-inventor-to-file effects, PGR/IPR timing windows, and equitable doctrines for US patents.
- For biologics, evaluate regulatory exclusivities (orphan, pediatric, biologics data exclusivity) alongside patent rights.

Related Skills

We are still matching the closest adjacent skills for this page. In the meantime, continue through the full directory.