Patent Pruning Analysis
Evaluate whether a patent case should be maintained or pruned based on claim scope analysis relative to other cases in the same patent family. Produces a determination of BROADEST, COMPLEMENTARY, NARROW, SUNSET, or REVIEW with supporting reasoning.
Instructions
- Read the instruction file at
${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/prompt.md - Ask the user for the required inputs if not already provided via
$ARGUMENTS:
- Patent claims
- Patent family information (other patents in the family) - Fill in the
{{PLACEHOLDER}}values with the user's content - Execute the prompt to perform the analysis
- Present the output to the user
Inputs
| Placeholder | What to put here |
|---|---|
{{TARGET_DOCKET}} |
Internal docket number of the case being analyzed |
{{TARGET_COUNTRY}} |
ISO country code (e.g., USA, DEU, JPN) |
{{TARGET_STATUS}} |
Status of the case: "Issued (enforceable)" or "Pending (published application)" |
{{TARGET_YEARS_REMAINING}} |
Years of patent life remaining (e.g., "12.3"). Write "Unknown" if not available. |
{{TARGET_FIRST_INDEPENDENT_CLAIM}} |
Full text of the first independent claim. Write "No claims available" if claims are not accessible. |
{{SAME_JURISDICTION_CASES}} |
List of other cases in the same jurisdiction. For each case, include: Docket, Status, Years Remaining, and First Independent Claim. Write "No other cases in this jurisdiction." if none exist. |
{{OTHER_JURISDICTION_CASES}} |
List of family cases in other jurisdictions. For each, include: Docket, Country, Status, Years Remaining, and First Independent Claim. Write "None" if not applicable. |
Attribution
Adapted from arcprime-ip/patent-prompts (MIT License) by ArcPrime — <https://github.com/arcprime-ip/patent-prompts>.
Original prompt text is reproduced with the license notice retained. Modifications: repackaged into a
standalone skill with references/prompt.md, bilingual description, and SkillHub metadata.
> This skill produces an analytical aid, not legal advice. Always have a qualified patent
> professional review any output before relying on it.
Scope
Written for US patent practice — USPTO filing and prosecution, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101/102/103/112,
Alice/Mayo eligibility, Graham/KSR obviousness. For CNIPA or EPO practice, the statutory
frameworks differ and the analysis must be adapted.
