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.
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
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/biotech-patent-summaries/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How biotech-patent-summaries Compares
| Feature / Agent | biotech-patent-summaries | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/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.