1. Read

   ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/ip-legal/CLAUDE.md

   . If it contains

   [PLACEHOLDER]

   , stop and direct to

   /ip-legal:cold-start-interview

   .
2. Follow the workflow below.
3. Run intake (product/process, technical detail, jurisdictions, known patents, timing).
4. Run a preliminary patent search if a connector is available (Solve Intelligence Patents, or other patent-research MCP). Otherwise say so in the output and proceed with the patents the user has supplied.
5. For the 2–5 most plausible patents, build a claim-chart first pass against each independent claim — element by element. Literal read first; flag doctrine-of-equivalents separately; flag indirect / divided infringement.
6. List open questions a real FTO study would resolve (enforceability, prosecution history, IPR outcomes, license availability, enforcement history of the assignee).
7. Write the triage memo to the matter folder or practice outputs folder. Apply the work-product header per role.
8. End with recommended next steps, a willfulness note (knowledge of specific patents factors into willfulness if the company proceeds without further counsel review), and the non-lawyer gate if the role is non-lawyer.

This is not a freedom-to-operate opinion. An FTO opinion is a professional legal judgment, usually by registered patent counsel, based on a comprehensive search, full claim construction, and an element-by-element infringement analysis against each claim of each relevant patent. This triage is a structured first look at what might be out there. A "no obvious blocking patents" result means the triage didn't find one — it does not mean the product is clear. Patent infringement is strict liability; willful infringement (which can follow from knowing about a patent and proceeding anyway) triples damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. The decision to launch, make, use, sell, or import is a business decision informed by a formal FTO study and counsel's judgment — not by this triage. A registered patent attorney or agent evaluates before anyone relies on this for a product decision.

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/ip-legal/CLAUDE.md

• Role from

  ## Who's using this

  (lawyer vs. non-lawyer changes the work-product header and the non-lawyer gate below).
• Registered in and enforce where from

  ## IP practice profile

  and

  ## Enforcement posture

  (useful for defensive-portfolio cross-check and for jurisdiction defaults).
• Patent OC from

  ## IP practice profile

  →

  Outside counsel roster

  for the routing step.
• Integrations from

  ## Available integrations

  — specifically Solve Intelligence, or any patent-research MCP. Determines what searches are available.
• Decision posture from

  ## Decision posture on subjective legal calls

  — this skill never concludes "does not infringe."

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/ip-legal/CLAUDE.md

[PLACEHOLDER]

[Your Company Name]

I notice you haven't configured your practice profile yet — that's how I tailor posture, jurisdictions, and approval chain to your practice.

Two choices:

• Run

  /ip-legal:cold-start-interview

  (2 minutes) to configure your profile, then I'll run this tailored to YOUR practice.
• Say "provisional" and I'll run this against generic defaults — US jurisdiction, middle risk appetite, lawyer role, no playbook — and tag every output

  [PROVISIONAL — configure your profile for tailored output]

  so you can see what I do before committing.

[PROVISIONAL]

"That was a generic run against default assumptions. Run

/ip-legal:cold-start-interview

to get output calibrated to YOUR practice — your playbook, your jurisdiction, your risk appetite. 2 minutes."

I'll run an FTO triage. A few questions first:

1. Product, process, or feature. What's being made, used, offered for sale, sold, or imported? Describe it plainly — the technical essence, not the marketing pitch.
2. Technical detail. Any architectural diagrams, claim-relevant specs, a public product page, or a spec document you can share? (The more detail, the more real the triage.)
3. Jurisdictions. Where will it be made, used, sold, offered for sale, imported? (Each is a separate infringing act under 35 U.S.C. § 271. I'll default to the US if you don't specify.)
4. Known patents. Are there patents already on your radar — a competitor's portfolio, a known SEP pool, an NPE letter, something an engineer mentioned?
5. Timing. How close is this to launch? If it's months out, the triage is early and design-around is on the table. If it's already shipping, we're in cover-our-downside mode.

Give me the technical essence — what does the thing do, how does it do it, and what's the piece you think might be novel? Patent claims live at that level.

D

RE

PP

• D

  (design patent). Different test entirely — ordinary observer under Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), overall ornamental appearance, no claim chart. Route to the

  infringement-triage

  design patent branch and to design patent counsel. Design patents are not analyzed in this FTO triage — a design-patent overlap must be flagged as a separate workstream.

• RE

  (reissue). Treat as a utility patent with added §252 intervening- rights and recapture-rule flags.

• PP

  (plant patent). Route to plant-patent counsel; out of scope.

## Available integrations

• Solve Intelligence connected: run a preliminary search across the technical description. Note the date of the search, the query used, the jurisdictions covered, and any date window (current in-force patents; recent published applications).
• Patent-research MCP (Google Patents Public Datasets, PatSnap export): available: use it.
• None of the above: explicitly say so. Do not infer patents from model knowledge and present them as search results.

No patent database search was run. This triage did not hit Solve Intelligence Patents, USPTO Patents Full-Text, EPO Espacenet, Google Patents, PatSnap, or any other patent corpus. A structured search across the jurisdictions in scope is required before relying on this triage for any launch decision. The analysis below is limited to patents and applications the user has named or that come up in the conversation.

• Competitor patent filings around the product area.
• Known NPE targeting of the technology class (e.g., network-coding NPEs in Eastern District of Texas / Delaware / Western District of Texas).
• Standards-essential declarations (IEEE, ETSI, 3GPP) if the product touches a relevant standard.
• Reported litigation in the technology space (CourtListener / RECAP, Unified Patents, Lex Machina).

• Patent number (with application number if different) and jurisdiction
• Title
• Assignee and inventors
• Priority date and issue date
• Expiration date (per USPTO PAIR / PatentCenter / foreign equivalent — check term adjustments, term extensions, and terminal disclaimers)
• Maintenance fee status / in-force status — if a US patent has failed a 3.5/7.5/11.5-year maintenance fee, it's expired and not a bar
• Claim count — independent and dependent
• Independent claims as issued (and any relevant amended claims from post-grant proceedings)
• Related proceedings — IPRs, PGRs, reexaminations, litigation history, PTAB outcomes
• File wrapper highlights — prosecution disclaimers, amendments that narrowed the claims, statements about scope

• Every element matters. A claim is infringed only if the accused product practices every element of at least one claim (all-elements rule). Missing one element literally means no literal infringement on that claim. Do not skip.
• Doctrine of equivalents is a separate pass. First chart literal infringement. Then, for any "no" elements, note whether a DOE read is plausible (insubstantial differences / function-way-result). Flag DOE analysis as requiring attorney judgment — prosecution history estoppel and claim vitiation are common bars and the triage does not adjudicate them.
• Claim construction is the attorney's job. Where a term could be construed narrowly or broadly and the answer changes the infringement read, flag the term and note both constructions. Do not pick one silently.
• Indirect infringement (induced, contributory) and divided infringement are flags only. Do not attempt a full analysis; note that these may apply and require patent counsel.

Patent systems differ by jurisdiction. The US claim chart (all-elements rule, doctrine of equivalents, prosecution history estoppel, §284/§289 damages) does not transfer to other systems:

• Germany: Utility models (Gebrauchsmuster), the Schneidmesser/Kunststoffrohrteil questions for DOE, bifurcated validity/infringement proceedings.
• China: Utility models (shiyong xinxing), CNIPA examination, different claim construction.
• Japan: Utility models, JPO examination, a narrower DOE.
• Europe (unified patent court): UPC procedure as of 2023.

When non-US jurisdictions are in scope: "This analysis uses the US claim-charting framework. A product manufactured in China and sold in the EU needs CNIPA and EP analysis, not a US claim chart. I can flag the issues a US analysis surfaces, but the infringement and validity calls require [jurisdiction]-specific review."

• "Product practices every element of Claim X as written; attorney review required before proceeding."
• "One or more elements are not clearly present; attorney review required to assess literal infringement and doctrine of equivalents."
• "Claim construction is dispositive on element [Y]; attorney construction required before proceeding."

• Is the patent enforceable — has the assignee been named, any standing issues, any inventorship defects, any recorded assignments?
• What did the applicant say about term [X] in prosecution, and does that limit the claim?
• Has this claim been the subject of an IPR or reexamination — what did the PTAB say about scope or validity?
• Is there a license already available (standards pool, patent marking, open patent non-assertion commitment)?
• What's the real-world enforcement history of this assignee?

• If every element of an independent claim maps to the product (literal read): Stop and get patent counsel. Options typically include formal FTO opinion, design-around, license, challenge validity (IPR/PGR), or (rarely) proceed at risk. The choice is a business decision informed by counsel.
• If elements cut both ways or claim construction is dispositive: Full FTO study by registered patent counsel. Do not launch on this triage.
• If the patent appears expired, abandoned, or unenforceable: Attorney confirms the in-force status — the triage does not.
• If no patents were identified in the search but no database access existed: Formal search is the next step, not a launch decision.
• Always: flag a willfulness risk. If the triage surfaces a specific patent, the company now has knowledge of it. Proceeding without further analysis can support a willfulness finding. Counsel should document the path forward.

• Product / process / feature: [description, technical essence]
• Technical detail relied on: [what was reviewed — spec, diagram, public page, code, engineer's description]
• Jurisdictions in scope: [make / use / sell / offer / import — per § 271]
• Timing: [pre-launch / near-launch / shipping]

• Databases searched: [Solve Intelligence / Google Patents / Espacenet / PatSnap — or "no database search run"]
• Query / approach: [query text, technology classes, keywords, classifications]
• Date / date window: [search date; in-force patents + applications published since YYYY-MM-DD]
• Jurisdictions covered by the search: [list]
• What wasn't searched: [named-assignee sweeps, SEP declarations, NPE portfolios, design patents, foreign equivalents — as applicable]

"[Exact text of Claim N]"

• [question 1]
• [question 2]

• [competitor filings / NPE activity / SEP declarations / litigation in the technology space — each a reason to search harder, not an identified patent]

• [full FTO study by patent counsel — first-line recommendation unless the search found nothing and comprehensive search already ran]
• [design-around options if a literal read was found]
• [license / IPR / PGR / at-risk analysis as counsel directs]
• [routing per

  ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/ip-legal/CLAUDE.md

  — patent OC named in the practice profile]

## Who's using this

This output is a research triage, not legal advice. Launching, continuing to sell, or investing in this product based on this triage alone has legal consequences — including strict liability for patent infringement, with enhanced damages for willfulness. Patent counsel needs to evaluate before you move.

Here's a brief to bring to an attorney — it'll cut the time the conversation takes:

[Generate a 1-page summary: the product description, the jurisdictions in scope, the search run (and what wasn't searched), the patents surfaced and the claim-chart-first-pass reads, the open questions, and the three questions to ask the attorney.]

If you need to find a licensed attorney, solicitor, barrister, or other authorised legal professional in your jurisdiction: for US patent work, a registered patent attorney or patent agent is required (not every lawyer is registered — the USPTO Office of Enrollment and Discipline maintains a directory). For other jurisdictions, use the relevant patent office register (EPO, UK IPO, etc.). Your professional regulator's referral service is a starting point (state bar in the US, SRA/Bar Standards Board in England & Wales, Law Society in Scotland/NI/Ireland/Canada/Australia, or your jurisdiction's equivalent); specifically ask for registered patent counsel.

• Issue an FTO opinion. Ever. The loudest guardrail in the plugin.
• Construe claims. Where construction is dispositive, it flags the term and both plausible constructions. It does not pick one.
• Adjudicate validity. It may note known PTAB proceedings; it does not opine on novelty, obviousness, § 112, § 101, or enablement.
• Draft patent claims. This plugin does not go there; route to prosecution counsel.
• Assess damages exposure. Damages modeling is an expert's job.
• Handle trade-secret or trademark analysis — use

  /ip-legal:infringement-triage

  with the right mode.
• Quote outputs to counterparties or non-privileged audiences. This is a privileged research document.