Prompt Pilotby Write.law
All prompts

Draft

Draft an IP demand letter calibrated to the actual right

Writes a trademark, copyright or patent cease-and-desist that reads as credible rather than reflexive: precise right, verifiable conduct, countable demands, a declaratory-judgment check, and an off-ramp.

About 12 minintermediateIP, Litigation

Your prompt5,007 characters

Still to fill in: The right asserted, The conduct, with evidence, Recipient, Where you would sue, and where they sit

RoleYou are an IP enforcement lawyer who has sent thousands of demand letters and watched two of them end up on the front page. You calibrate the threat to the strength of the right, not to how angry the client is, and you write every sentence assuming it will be read aloud to a jury, because the letters that go wrong always are.What I needDraft a cease-and-desist to Recipient asserting The right asserted, in the Firm and immediate: counterfeiter or deliberate bad actor register, demanding compliance within 10 days. Then the internal memo, including the declaratory-judgment read against Where you would sue, and where they sit.InputsRight asserted: The right asserted Conduct and evidence: The conduct, with evidence Recipient: Recipient Forum picture: Where you would sue, and where they sit Tone: Firm and immediate: counterfeiter or deliberate bad actor Deadline: 10 daysHow to work this1. Open on the right, not the grievance: registration or claim identification, ownership chain, priority date. If any of that is missing from my inputs, say so before drafting. A right you cannot document is what draws a DJ complaint. 2. State the conduct in facts a stranger could verify: dates, URLs, product names, capture dates, the customer communication. No characterization of intent. 3. Walk the governing test in three or four sentences applied to these facts. Reciting factors without applying them tells their counsel you did not do the work. 4. Make every demand countable: which uses stop, which channels clear, what is destroyed, what period is accounted for, written confirmation by the date 10 days produces. 5. Write the consequence paragraph only as far as the client will actually go, then run the DJ check: how definite is the threat, and does Where you would sue, and where they sit let them file first somewhere worse for me? Answer in the memo and soften the threat if it is yes. 6. Reserve rights, and unless the tone is the hardest setting, offer one sentence of off-ramp.Close with these four sections, every time, without being askedAssumptions I made. Every factual and legal assumption, marked [verify] or [safe]: registration status, priority over the recipient's first use, the ownership chain, whether the parties compete. Where this is weakest. The two or three sentences most likely to be attacked: the one overstating the scope of the right, the one making the threat definite enough to support a DJ action, the factual claim resting on a single email. Name the sentence. What only you can decide. Options with tradeoffs. Firm letterhead (signals readiness, moves faster, raises DJ exposure) or a business note from the client (preserves the relationship, keeps the threat indefinite, rarely moves as fast). Demand an accounting now (frames damages, guarantees their litigators get involved) or hold it for round two (faster informal fix, thinner record). And whether the complaint is drafted before this goes out. What would make this materially better. Ranked: the registration certificate and file history, timestamped captures of every asserted use, the customer complaint in writing, and the client's decision on whether and where to file.Output formatThe letter: date, delivery method, recipient address, a subject line naming the right, then numbered sections for the right, the conduct, the legal basis, the demands, the consequences, the reservation. Then the internal memo, a three-bullet follow-up workflow at deadline plus one, plus seven, and on response, and the four closing sections.Never do this- If this letter would work against any infringer of any right, it is too generic. Every paragraph carries a number, a date, or a URL from my inputs. - No hedging filler. Cut "arguably," "it should be noted," and "we believe you may be." Do not tell me to consult an attorney. I am signing this. - Every registration number, patent number, claim quotation and case cite comes from my inputs or carries [UNVERIFIED - confirm before sending]. Never invent a registration number or a first-use date. - Where you do not know whether the registration is incontestable, whether my client's use predates theirs, or whether the parties compete, say you do not know instead of asserting priority. - No disparagement, no criminal-prosecution threat, no claim broader than my inputs support, no remedy the client will not pursue. This becomes an exhibit. - Do not pad. A strong claim against a small infringer is one page. Length is not value.Before you answer- Is the right identified by number, owner and priority date, and is every factual assertion traceable to my evidence? - Did I apply the legal test to these facts rather than reciting factors? - Can compliance with each demand be measured by the deadline? - Is there a sentence here I would not want read aloud in a deposition?

Adds driver's-seat tunes: options instead of answers, questions before work, every citation flagged. Your values come with it.

2

Pressure-test it

Makes the AI switch hats and attack its own answer.

The recipient's outside counsel has four options: comply, negotiate, ignore, or file a declaratory-judgment action at home before we can file. Read the letter as the lawyer choosing among them. Name the two passages that push toward the DJ filing and the one that tells them our client will not actually sue. Rewrite all three to keep the enforcement signal while cutting the DJ exposure, and give me the one sentence that gives them a face-saving way to fold.
3

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

Two more letters are coming, and both are easier to write today than in the week they are needed: the short escalation email for the day after the deadline passes with no response, and the walking-back letter the client sends if diligence shows the strongest claim was overstated. The second one has to narrow the demand without conceding the right or inviting a fee motion.

Before you run it

What to gather first

  • Registration or patent number, ownership chain, and priority or first-use date
  • Dated evidence of the conduct: URLs, captures, samples, customer communications
  • Who the recipient is, how sophisticated they are, and whether they have counsel
  • Where the client would actually file, and where the recipient sits
  • Whether the client's real goal is stopping the use, a license, or a filing

Watch for

  • A demand letter can create declaratory-judgment jurisdiction and hand the recipient their choice of forum. Patent letters are the most exposed; check the recipient's home district before you make the threat definite.
  • Asserting rights broader than you hold (common-law rights you cannot prove, claims beyond the registration's goods) invites an unfair-competition or misuse counterclaim and undercuts everything else in the letter.
  • Demand letters against consumers, critics, and small businesses reliably become public. Calibrate proportionally or expect the letter itself to be the story.
  • Preserve every capture, sample, and customer communication referenced. They become exhibits, and a reference to evidence you cannot produce is worse than no reference.
  • The model cannot confirm registration status, incontestability, or priority. Pull the actual records before signing anything asserting them.

What comes back

A send-ready letter with date, delivery method, recipient address, a subject line naming the right, and numbered sections covering the right, the conduct, the legal basis applied to these facts, countable demands with a deadline, proportionate consequences, and a reservation of rights; a four-to-six-sentence internal memo recording strength, declaratory-judgment read, tone choice and contingency plan; a three-bullet follow-up workflow; and the four closing sections.

See an example of what you’ll get
Re: Infringement of HELIX HALO® (Reg. No. 5,872,341); Demand to Cease and Desist April 27, 2026, via FedEx and email to Riverpoint Bio LLC, Attn: General Counsel Riverpoint is using HELIX HALO X on competing laboratory tools and at helixhalox.com. Helix Therapeutics, the owner of the federally registered HELIX HALO mark, requires that this use stop within fourteen (14) days. 1. Helix's rights. Helix owns U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 5,872,341 for HELIX HALO (stylized), laboratory tools and equipment in International Class 9, registered February 12, 2019 with a priority date of June 4, 2018. The mark has been in continuous use in U.S. commerce since 2018 and the registration is incontestable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065. 2. Riverpoint's conduct. Beginning in or about January 2026, Riverpoint adopted HELIX HALO X and the domain helixhalox.com for laboratory-tool products. We hold captures of helixhalox.com from April 4 and April 22, 2026, and copies of Riverpoint marketing emails using the term. On April 4, 2026 a Helix customer wrote to ask whether the two product lines are related. 3. Likelihood of confusion. HELIX HALO X is HELIX HALO plus a non-distinctive letter. The goods are directly competitive laboratory tools; the channels are identical; and the parties sell to the same research-lab buyers, who encounter both marks in side-by-side comparisons. Helix's mark is incontestable and has been used exclusively for eight years. The April 4 customer inquiry is evidence of actual confusion. Every factor that matters here runs one direction. 4. Demands: by May 11, 2026. (a) Permanently cease all use of HELIX HALO X and any confusingly similar mark on products, packaging, marketing, the website, and social channels; (b) take down helixhalox.com; (c) destroy or surrender remaining materials bearing the mark and certify destruction; (d) provide an accounting of sales of products bearing HELIX HALO X from first use to the date use ceases; (e) confirm compliance in writing. 5. Consequences and resolution. If Riverpoint does not respond by May 11, Helix will evaluate all available remedies, including injunctive relief and recovery of damages and profits. Helix would rather resolve this without litigation. If Riverpoint commits promptly to a rebrand, Helix will discuss a reasonable wind-down for existing inventory. All rights and remedies are expressly reserved. /s/ Counsel for Helix Therapeutics, Inc. --- Internal memo. Strength: high; incontestable registration, identical goods and channels, one documented instance of actual confusion. DJ read: moderate to high. Riverpoint sits in D. Mass. and Helix would file in N.D. Cal.; the demand paragraph is deliberately written as "evaluate all available remedies" rather than a filing commitment to keep the threat short of immediacy. Tone: businesslike, competitor register. Contingency: if no substantive response by May 11, complaint and PI papers ready within 7 days; monitor D. Mass. and D. Del. dockets daily starting May 1 for a DJ filing. Follow-up workflow. - May 12: short email referencing the letter, requesting a status by close of business; re-capture the site. - May 18: finalize complaint and PI papers; client decision meeting. - On substantive response: 30-minute call within 3 business days; get any concession in writing before exchanging drafts. --- Assumptions I made. The § 15 declaration was accepted and the registration is in fact incontestable [verify - pull the TSDR record]. Helix's 2018 first use predates Riverpoint's adoption [verify - the January 2026 date is approximate]. The parties compete for the same buyers rather than adjacent segments [safe on this record]. Where this is weakest. Section 3 rests actual confusion on a single customer email. If that email is ambiguous or the customer will not confirm, the sentence "is evidence of actual confusion" is the one their counsel quotes back. Section 4(d), the accounting demand, is also the sentence most likely to route this straight to litigation counsel rather than to a business person who would just rebrand. What only you can decide. Firm letterhead as drafted: faster, signals readiness, and raises the odds of a D. Mass. DJ filing, or a business-to-business note from Helix's CEO, which keeps the threat indefinite and DJ exposure low but rarely produces a rebrand in fourteen days. Second: demand the accounting now (frames damages, guarantees their litigators get involved) or hold it for round two (a rebrand may be all the client actually wants). Third: whether the complaint is on file-ready standby before this goes out, which is the only thing that makes the consequence paragraph true. What would make this materially better. (1) The TSDR record confirming incontestability. (2) The customer's April 4 email in full, plus a willingness to confirm confusion. (3) Riverpoint's actual first-use date from their site history. (4) Helix's decision on whether it will file, and where.
Why this prompt is built the way it is
## Framework 1. **Lead with the right.** Registration or serial number, work and registration, or the asserted claims, plus ownership chain and priority date. 2. **State conduct in verifiable facts.** URLs, dates, product names, capture dates, the complaint you received. Specificity is credibility; adjectives are a liability. 3. **Walk the actual test.** Likelihood of confusion, substantial similarity plus access, or claim coverage, applied to these facts, not recited as a list. 4. **Demands must be countable.** Which uses cease, which channels clear, what gets destroyed, what period is accounted for, confirmation by when. 5. **Only credible consequences.** Do not write a sentence implying a filing the client will not make. 6. **Run the DJ check.** A definite threat plus a recipient in another district can hand the other side the forum. Calibrate the threat language accordingly. 7. **No overreach.** No disparagement, no criminal-prosecution threat, no claim broader than the documented right. 8. **Reserve rights and offer an off-ramp.** A path to resolution costs nothing and closes more matters than it weakens. 9. **Assume it becomes an exhibit.** Because it will.