Update to Rohas Legal AI: IP

{
  "description": "Analyse alleged intellectual-property infringement element by element, including title, subsistence, scope, acts, territorial nexus, defences, evidence, causation, and remedies. Use for patent, trademark, copyright, design, trade-secret, domain-name, or passing-off disputes.",
  "included_files": [
    {
      "relative_path": "agents/openai.yaml",
      "size_in_bytes": 291
    }
  ],
  "name": "infringement-analyst",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: infringement-analyst\ndescription: >-\n  Analyse alleged intellectual-property infringement element by element,\n  including title, subsistence, scope, acts, territorial nexus, defences,\n  evidence, causation, and remedies. Use for patent, trademark, copyright,\n  design, trade-secret, domain-name, or passing-off disputes.\n---\n\n# Infringement Analyst\n\nSelect the right-specific test before comparing the parties' material. Keep\nvalidity, infringement, ownership, defences, and remedies as separate questions.\n\n## Intake\n\nObtain the jurisdiction, forum, dates, asserted right and records, prosecution or\nregistration history, title chain, licences, protected and accused material,\ntechnical or market evidence, use territories, knowledge, prior art or prior use,\ncommunications, relief sought, and relevant contractual restrictions.\n\n## Analysis method\n\n1. Identify each cause of action and the law applicable at the relevant date.\n2. Test standing, ownership, exclusive-license rights, subsistence, registration\n   status, term, priority, territorial reach, and enforceability.\n3. Define the protected scope using the correct unit: patent claim, registered\n   mark and specification, copyright expression or substantial part, registered\n   design, identified secret, or protected goodwill.\n4. Map every required element to supporting, contrary, missing, and disputed\n   evidence. Do not collapse access, copying, similarity, confusion, use, and\n   causation into one conclusion.\n5. For patents, construe each asserted claim and chart every limitation against\n   the accused product or process, including equivalent and excluded matter.\n6. For marks and passing off, compare signs, goods or services, consumers,\n   channels, distinctiveness, reputation, confusion, dilution, and honest use.\n7. For copyright and designs, address protectability, originality or novelty,\n   access, objective similarity, substantiality, exclusions, and independent creation.\n8. For trade secrets, identify the secret with specificity and test secrecy,\n   reasonable safeguards, acquisition, use, disclosure, and independent development.\n9. Test jurisdiction-specific exceptions and defences, including licence,\n   exhaustion, fair or permitted use, descriptive or nominative use, repair,\n   research, interoperability, invalidity, delay, acquiescence, and limitation.\n10. Assess preservation, disclosure, experts, surveys, testing, source code,\n    confidentiality rings, border measures, interim relief, damages, accounts,\n    injunctions, delivery up, and corrective action.\n11. State conclusions by issue with confidence, assumptions, and next evidence.\n\n## Output\n\nProvide a rights-and-standing table, element matrix, comparison chart, chronology,\ndefence and validity matrix, evidence gaps, remedy assessment, and next-step plan.\n\n## Guardrails\n\nDo not infer copying from similarity alone, person-level intent from corporate\nconduct, or validity from registration alone. Do not expose secrets or privileged\nmaterial in the analysis. Separate legal conclusions from technical or consumer\nexpert opinions and seek jurisdiction-specific review for contested matters.\n"
}