Chart an asserted claim against an accused product
This page lists three turns, the messages you send to the AI one after another in the same chat, and then a check of the answer. Keep it open next to your chat. Each turn shows the next thing to paste, with the values you entered already filled in. Nothing is sent from this page, and your conversation stays in the AI tool you are using.
Paste the claim verbatim: independent first, plus any dependent claims you want charted.
Name the product, then paste or list every piece of evidence with its locator.
Flips what a gap means: for the patentee it is a discovery target, for the defense it is the defense.
Court or tribunal, and any local patent rule or standing order that governs the form of contentions.
Known constructions, limiting amendments, arguments distinguishing prior art, contested terms.
Watch for these throughout
Local patent rules govern the form and timing of contentions, and charts that fail them get struck with limited leave to amend. Confirm your court's requirements before serving anything built from this.
Prosecution-history estoppel can foreclose doctrine of equivalents entirely. Pull the actual file wrapper. A chart that assumes DOE is available without checking the amendments is worse than no chart.
Means-plus-function limitations require corresponding structure identified in the specification, not in the claim. Missing this is the single most common way a chart is found deficient.
Marketing copy is not technical evidence. A vendor's claim to a "two-stage filter" may describe one filter run twice, and the model cannot tell the difference from public materials.
Source code, sample teardowns, and internal architecture documents usually arrive under a protective order. Do not paste produced material into any tool your protective order does not cover.