markman-hearing-brief
Drafts Markman Hearing Briefs for patent claim construction under the Phillips framework. Structures disputed-term analysis from intrinsic evidence (claims, specification, prosecution history) with local-rule-compliant formatting. Use when preparing claim construction briefs, Markman hearing submissions, or patent claim interpretation arguments in US federal court.
Best use case
markman-hearing-brief is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Drafts Markman Hearing Briefs for patent claim construction under the Phillips framework. Structures disputed-term analysis from intrinsic evidence (claims, specification, prosecution history) with local-rule-compliant formatting. Use when preparing claim construction briefs, Markman hearing submissions, or patent claim interpretation arguments in US federal court.
Teams using markman-hearing-brief 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/markman-hearing-brief/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How markman-hearing-brief Compares
| Feature / Agent | markman-hearing-brief | 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?
Drafts Markman Hearing Briefs for patent claim construction under the Phillips framework. Structures disputed-term analysis from intrinsic evidence (claims, specification, prosecution history) with local-rule-compliant formatting. Use when preparing claim construction briefs, Markman hearing submissions, or patent claim interpretation arguments in US federal court.
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
# Markman Hearing Brief Drafts a claim construction brief persuading the court to adopt the client's proposed constructions of disputed patent claim terms under the Phillips framework. ## Prerequisites Gather before drafting: - **Patent-in-suit** — claims, specification (column:line or ¶ cites), drawings - **Prosecution history** — office actions, responses, amendments, examiner interviews - **Disputed terms** — each term with client's and opposing party's proposed constructions - **Party position** — plaintiff/defendant; opening/responsive brief - **Local rules** — font, margins, page/word limits, caption format, CM/ECF requirements - **Case management order** — briefing schedule, page limits, claim construction procedures ## Brief Structure ### 1. Caption & Title Page Court name, parties, case number, and title per local rules. Title format: "[Party]'s Opening/Responsive Brief in Support of Claim Construction." ### 2. TOC / TOA - **TOC**: all sections with page refs — generate after final draft - **TOA**: cases (alphabetical, Bluebook), statutes/rules, treatises/dictionaries ### 3. Introduction - Identify patent-in-suit, disputed terms, and proposed constructions - Include claim construction summary table: | Disputed Term | [Party]'s Construction | Opposing Construction | |---|---|---| | "[term]" | … | … | - Roadmap arguments; write for a generalist judge ### 4. Factual & Procedural Background - **The invention** — problem solved and how; plain language - **Prosecution history** — amendments, arguments overcoming rejections, estoppel implications - **Litigation posture** — accused products/processes, procedural history to Markman hearing - Cite spec by column:line or ¶; prosecution history by date and document ### 5. Legal Standards Present the Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) framework: | Principle | Rule | |---|---| | Ordinary meaning | POSITA meaning at time of invention | | Intrinsic hierarchy | Claims → specification → prosecution history | | Specification as context | Read claims in light of spec; do not import limitations unless clearly intended | | Claim differentiation | Different terms presumed different meanings | | Validity preservation | Construe to preserve validity; cannot override ordinary meaning | | Prosecution history estoppel | Clear, unmistakable disavowals bind patentee | | Extrinsic evidence | May inform but cannot contradict intrinsic record | Cite analogous Federal Circuit cases with parentheticals. ### 6. Proposed Constructions — Per Disputed Term For each term, follow this sub-structure: **A. "[Claim Term]"** - **Proposed construction:** [precise language] - **Claim language** — usage in context; cross-claim differentiation analysis - **Specification** — quoted passages showing usage/definition; operation description; purpose/advantages - **Prosecution history** — applicant statements on meaning; narrowing amendments; prior-art distinctions - **Extrinsic evidence** (if applicable) — dictionaries, expert declarations, treatises; must confirm, not contradict, intrinsic record - **Rebuttal** — why opposing construction conflicts with intrinsic evidence, renders language superfluous, or fails under Phillips hierarchy ### 7. Conclusion - Summary table restating each proposed construction - Request court adopt constructions - No new arguments or evidence ### 8. Certificate of Service Date, parties served, method (CM/ECF), counsel signature. Comply with FRCP 5 and local rules. ## Critical Rules - **Phillips framework governs** — organize every term through intrinsic evidence hierarchy - **Never import spec limitations** unless patentee acted as own lexicographer or clearly disclaimed scope - **Quote precisely** — spec by column:line or ¶; prosecution history by document and date - **Anticipate opposition** — preemptively address strongest counterarguments per term - **Consistency** — proposed constructions must work across all claims containing the term - **Accessibility** — explain technical terms for a non-specialist judge - **Tone** — professional, respectful, forceful; never dismissive of opposing positions ## Final QC Checklist - [ ] All citations verified against source documents - [ ] Cross-references correct - [ ] Word/page count within local-rule limits - [ ] TOC/TOA regenerated after final edits - [ ] Local-rule formatting confirmed (font, margins, spacing, caption) - [ ] Certificate of service complete
Related Skills
summary-judgment-brief
Drafts FRCP 56 summary judgment motion briefs for U.S. commercial litigation. Synthesizes discovery evidence with controlling authority to show no genuine dispute of material fact. Use when drafting MSJ briefs, dispositive motions, or partial summary judgment papers post-discovery.
reply-brief-appellant
Drafts an appellant's Reply Brief that rebuts the appellee's response and reinforces the case for reversal. Triggers when drafting appellant reply briefs, appellate rebuttals, or the final pre-argument written submission.
rehearing-en-banc
Drafts a Petition for Rehearing En Banc under FRAP 35 or state equivalents. Guides threshold analysis for precedent conflicts and exceptional importance, enforces formatting/word limits, and includes required certifications. Use when seeking full appellate court reconsideration of a panel decision, raising circuit splits, or challenging panel holdings that conflict with controlling authority.
pre-hearing-statement
Drafts a Pre-Hearing Statement of Proof for personal injury litigation. Use when preparing prehearing statements, statements of proof, or evidentiary summaries for hearings before courts or administrative agencies.
policy-brief
Generates structured public policy briefs analyzing legislation across economic, social, legal, and implementation dimensions. Use when drafting legislative impact analyses, policy summaries, regulatory briefs, or government affairs memoranda for lawmakers, lobbyists, or civic organizations.
parole-hearing-summary
Summarizes parole hearing transcripts into structured analytical documents covering case identification, inmate testimony, victim impact, evidence review, board decision, and strategic analysis. Use when summarizing parole hearings, board decisions, parole denials, parole grant conditions, or preparing for future hearings and post-conviction strategy.
mediation-brief
Drafts mediation briefs for commercial litigation that educate the mediator on facts, law, damages, and litigation risks while advancing settlement. Use when preparing for mediation sessions, drafting pre-mediation submissions, or creating settlement briefs.
hearing-prep
Generates structured hearing preparation briefings from case documents, evidence, authorities, and procedural details. Use when preparing for court hearings, administrative hearings, arbitrations, trials, motion hearings, evidentiary hearings, or status conferences.
hearing-prep-summary
Produces a quick-reference hearing preparation summary synthesizing pleadings, evidence, witnesses, and governing law into issue matrices, exhibit cross-references, and procedural checklists. Use when preparing for motion hearings, evidentiary hearings, trials, administrative or arbitration hearings, or when asked for "hearing prep," "trial prep summary," "hearing brief," or "prep memo."
fairness-hearing-notice
Drafts FRCP 23(e)-compliant class action fairness hearing notices. Extracts settlement terms, class definition, deadlines, and court-mandated language from case documents to produce plain-language notices satisfying due process. Use when drafting settlement notices, fairness hearing notices, class action notice of proposed settlement, or CAFA notices.
extend-time-brief
Drafts appellate motions to extend time for filing briefs (opening, answering, or reply) in U.S. appellate courts. Demonstrates good cause through specific verifiable facts, addresses opposing counsel's position, and ensures rule compliance. Use when drafting extension of time motions, appellate deadline extensions, or briefing schedule modifications.
class-action-fairness-hearing
Drafts FRCP 23(e)-compliant fairness hearing notices for class action settlements. Covers settlement terms, opt-out rights, objection procedures, and hearing logistics. Use when notifying class members of a proposed settlement pending court approval.