notice-of-prior-art

Drafts a Notice of Prior Art disclosing references material to patentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, with element-by-element claim charts and forum-specific compliance (USPTO 37 CFR 1.56, district court local patent rules, PTAB 35 U.S.C. § 311). Use when preparing invalidity contentions, duty-of-disclosure filings, inter partes review petitions, or pre-litigation prior art disclosures.

11 stars

Best use case

notice-of-prior-art is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.

Drafts a Notice of Prior Art disclosing references material to patentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, with element-by-element claim charts and forum-specific compliance (USPTO 37 CFR 1.56, district court local patent rules, PTAB 35 U.S.C. § 311). Use when preparing invalidity contentions, duty-of-disclosure filings, inter partes review petitions, or pre-litigation prior art disclosures.

Teams using notice-of-prior-art 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/notice-of-prior-art/SKILL.md --create-dirs "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/CaseMark/skills/main/skills/legal/notice-of-prior-art/SKILL.md"

Manual Installation

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

How notice-of-prior-art Compares

Feature / Agentnotice-of-prior-artStandard Approach
Platform SupportNot specifiedLimited / Varies
Context Awareness High Baseline
Installation ComplexityUnknownN/A

Frequently Asked Questions

What does this skill do?

Drafts a Notice of Prior Art disclosing references material to patentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, with element-by-element claim charts and forum-specific compliance (USPTO 37 CFR 1.56, district court local patent rules, PTAB 35 U.S.C. § 311). Use when preparing invalidity contentions, duty-of-disclosure filings, inter partes review petitions, or pre-litigation prior art disclosures.

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

# Notice of Prior Art

Drafts a litigation-ready Notice of Prior Art with element-by-element claim mapping, prior art reference disclosures, and procedural compliance for USPTO, district court, or PTAB proceedings.

## Prerequisites

1. **Patent-at-issue** — number, filing/issue dates, inventors, independent + dependent claims
2. **Prosecution history** — IDS filings, office actions, claim-narrowing amendments
3. **Prior art references** — patents, publications, products, public uses with dates and bibliographic data
4. **Procedural context** — forum: USPTO (37 CFR 1.56) | district court (local patent rules) | PTAB (§ 311) | informal
5. **Claim chart** — which claims are challenged and which limitations each reference addresses

## Checkpoint A: Pre-Draft Intake

Determine before drafting:

1. **Pre-AIA vs. AIA** — which § 102 framework applies (effective filing date before/after March 16, 2013)
2. **Forum** — dictates caption format, citation conventions, certification language, and evidentiary standard
3. **Claim construction** — adopt consistent terminology matching patent claims and specification
4. **Scope** — anticipation only (§ 102), obviousness (§ 103), or both

## Step 1: Header & Caption

| Forum | Required Elements |
|---|---|
| **USPTO** | Application/patent number, art unit, examiner, confirmation number, customer number |
| **District Court** | Full case caption, civil action number, court/division, assigned judge |
| **PTAB** | Proceeding number (IPR/PGR), patent number, petitioner/patent owner |

Include statutory basis (35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103), full patent identification (number, issue date, application number, filing date, inventors in patent order, title), and procedural authority (USPTO → 37 CFR 1.56; district court → local patent rules; PTAB → § 311).

## Step 2: Prior Art Reference Disclosures

For each reference, provide:

**Patent references:**
- Full number with country code (e.g., US 5,123,456 A), all inventors, issue/publication date, title, assignee, CPC classification
- Foreign patents: original-language title + English translation; patent family info

**Non-patent literature:**
- Full bibliographic citation (MPEP convention for USPTO; Bluebook for court)
- Authors, title, journal, volume/issue, date, pages, DOI/URL
- Standards/proceedings: sponsoring org, date, location, document ID

**Public use / on-sale bar (§ 102(a)/(b)):**
- Dates of offer for sale, public demonstration, or third-party access
- Corroborating evidence (sales records, invoices, marketing materials)
- Analysis of why disclosure was sufficiently public; address confidentiality issues

## Step 3: Claim-by-Claim Analysis

### Anticipation (§ 102)

For each challenged claim, create an element-by-element chart:

| Claim Element | Prior Art Disclosure | Citation (col:line / page:para) |
|---|---|---|
| [Limitation] | [Corresponding disclosure] | [Precise location] |

- Every limitation must be disclosed expressly or inherently in a single reference
- Enablement: reference must enable practice without undue experimentation — *In re Wands*, 858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988) [VERIFY]
- Inherent disclosure: cite *Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms.*, 339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) [VERIFY]; explain why limitation necessarily results from express disclosures

### Obviousness (§ 103)

Apply the *Graham v. John Deere Co.*, 383 U.S. 1 (1966) framework:

| Graham Factor | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Scope/content of prior art | Technical field, problems addressed, solutions disclosed |
| Level of ordinary skill | Education, experience, technology sophistication |
| Differences from prior art | Map references to limitations; identify alleged inventive step |
| Motivation to combine | Per *KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.*, 550 U.S. 398 (2007) — from references, skilled-artisan knowledge, or nature of problem |
| Reasonable expectation of success | Why a skilled artisan would predict the combination works |

Address secondary considerations if applicable (*Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.*, 713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983) [VERIFY]):
- Commercial success, long-felt unresolved need, failure of others
- Copying by competitors, unexpected results, industry praise / expert skepticism

## Step 4: Exhibit List

| Exhibit | Description | Date | Source | Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | [Doc type & title] | [Date] | [Author/source] | [Claim/limitation addressed] |

- Every cited reference must appear as an exhibit or have a verifiable public source (DOI, stable URL, accession number)
- Foreign-language references: note translation status; include certification if required
- Citation format: MPEP for USPTO; Bluebook for court filings

## Step 5: Conclusion & Certification

State whether prior art anticipates (§ 102), renders obvious (§ 103), or raises substantial patentability questions. In litigation, note the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard (35 U.S.C. § 282).

| Forum | Certification |
|---|---|
| **USPTO (37 CFR 1.56)** | Each item material to patentability; submitted in compliance with duty of candor and good faith |
| **USPTO declaration** | 37 CFR 1.68 (domestic) or 28 U.S.C. § 1746 (foreign declarants) |
| **District court** | Per local rules and FRCP requirements |
| **PTAB** | Per 37 CFR 42 requirements |

Signature block: typed name, designation (patent attorney/agent), USPTO registration number, firm, address, phone, email, date. Comply with e-filing requirements (Patent Center / CM/ECF).

## Checkpoint B: Post-Draft Review

1. Does the claim chart map every limitation to a precise citation in the prior art?
2. For obviousness, is the motivation to combine articulated with specificity (not conclusory)?
3. Are all references properly categorized and exhibited?
4. Does the forum-specific certification match the filing venue?

## Quality Audit

- [ ] Correct § 102 framework applied (Pre-AIA vs. AIA)
- [ ] Claim terminology consistent with patent specification
- [ ] Every legal assertion supported by factual analysis (no conclusory statements)
- [ ] Element-by-element chart covers all challenged claim limitations
- [ ] Obviousness analysis addresses all Graham factors
- [ ] Reservation language included if additional prior art may be identified through discovery
- [ ] Duty-of-disclosure noted as ongoing for USPTO filings
- [ ] No work-product analysis disclosed beyond required disclosure obligation
- [ ] All patent numbers, dates, and case citations verified against primary sources
- [ ] All bracketed terms filled or flagged

## Guidelines

- Every fact and legal assertion must have analytical support — no conclusory statements
- Include reservation-of-rights language if discovery is ongoing
- For USPTO filings, note that duty of disclosure continues throughout prosecution
- Do not disclose work-product analysis beyond the applicable disclosure obligation
- Verify all citations against primary sources before filing
- Mark unverified external citations with `[VERIFY]`
- **All outputs require attorney review**

---

Key changes from the original:
- **Frontmatter**: description converted to multi-line YAML `>-` block with clearer trigger guidance
- **Added Checkpoint A** (pre-draft intake) pulling key decision points (AIA framework, forum, scope) out of scattered guidelines into a single upfront gate
- **Replaced "Output Structure" heading** with numbered **Step 1–5** workflow for clearer sequencing
- **Merged Introduction into Step 1** — eliminated a standalone section that repeated header info
- **Consolidated secondary considerations** from 6 checkbox items into 2 compact bullet lines
- **Removed code fences** around the claim chart (used inline table instead)
- **Added Checkpoint B** (post-draft review) with 4 targeted validation questions
- **Added Quality Audit** checklist consolidating all verification requirements
- **Trimmed Guidelines** from 7 verbose bold-header entries to 7 concise single-line rules
- All domain-critical content preserved: Graham factors, anticipation/inherency analysis, forum-specific certifications, exhibit requirements, and `[VERIFY]` markers

Please grant file write permission and I'll apply the edit, or you can copy the content above directly.

Related Skills

reviewing-prior-comparisons

11
from CaseMark/skills

Structures comparison with prior imaging studies to identify interval changes and trends. Use when comparing imaging studies, identifying interval changes, or tracking disease progression.

protest-notice

11
from CaseMark/skills

Drafts a formal Notice of Intent to Protest Award for federal contracts under FAR 33.103, 33.104, and 4 C.F.R. Part 21. Use when a client receives an adverse contract award decision and must preserve GAO protest rights within the 10-day jurisdictional deadline. Covers bid protests, stay of performance requests, and contracting officer notifications.

prior-art-summary

11
from CaseMark/skills

Generates structured summaries of prior art references for patent prosecution, validity analysis, and freedom-to-operate assessments. Maps disclosures to claim elements with precise citations. Use when summarizing prior art, analyzing patent landscapes, mapping references to claims, or preparing office action responses.

notice-to-perform

11
from CaseMark/skills

Drafts a U.S. residential real estate Notice to Perform (cure notice) identifying contractual defaults, demanding specific cure actions, and preserving remedies. Use when drafting a notice to perform, notice to cure, default notice, or breach-and-cure letter for a residential purchase agreement or lease.

notice-to-perform-real-estate

11
from CaseMark/skills

Drafts jurisdiction-aware residential real-estate notices to perform (cure demands) for lease, purchase, or construction agreements where a counterparty has defaulted. Trigger when the user needs a notice to perform, notice to cure, cure notice, demand to perform, residential default notice, or pre-suit notice for a U.S. residential real-estate matter.

notice-of-entry

11
from CaseMark/skills

Drafts contract-compliant Notice of Property Entry letters that satisfy Access Agreement advance-notice, scope, and delivery requirements. Trigger when the user mentions notice of entry, right-of-entry notice, property entry notice, access agreement notice, property inspection notification, business-day calendar calculations for entry, COI delivery before property access, or documenting scope/personnel for a real property inspection, environmental assessment, or construction access.

notice-of-assets-claims

11
from CaseMark/skills

Drafts a Notice of Assets and Request for Claims for probate estates. Triggers when administering an estate, publishing creditor notice, filing a probate notice of assets, or establishing claim bar dates. Handles jurisdictional research, asset disclosure, claim filing procedures, and execution requirements under state-specific probate codes.

notice-of-appearance

11
from CaseMark/skills

Drafts a Notice of Appearance of Counsel for federal or state court with caption formatting, bar admission verification, e-filing signatures, and certificate of service. Use when an attorney is entering, substituting, or joining as counsel of record in litigation.

notice-of-appeal

11
from CaseMark/skills

Drafts a Notice of Appeal to initiate appellate review of a trial court judgment or order in US federal and state courts. Use when filing a notice of appeal, commencing appellate review, or preserving appellate jurisdiction after an adverse ruling.

notice-of-appeal-criminal

11
from CaseMark/skills

Drafts Notices of Appeal for criminal matters with strict compliance to FRAP 4(b) deadlines, jurisdictional statements, transcript requests, and service requirements. Use when filing a criminal appeal, initiating appellate review after conviction or sentencing, or preparing post-trial appellate filings.

notice-of-annual-shareholders-meeting

11
from CaseMark/skills

Drafts a U.S. corporate annual shareholders meeting notice enforcing record-date accuracy, notice timing, quorum/vote thresholds, proxy logistics, and agenda disclosures under charter/bylaws and state statutes. Triggers on requests involving annual meeting notice, shareholder meeting notice, record date, quorum, proxy voting, or annual meeting agenda.

intercreditor-lien-priority

11
from CaseMark/skills

Drafts U.S. intercreditor agreements establishing first lien vs second lien priority over shared collateral, covering standstill, enforcement control, payment waterfall/turnover, and 11 U.S.C. 510(a) subordination. Use for first lien/second lien financings, refinancing, or intercreditor negotiations requiring lien priority and remedies governance. Trigger: intercreditor, lien priority, first lien, second lien, standstill, turnover, payment waterfall, subordination agreement.