/invention-intake

name: invention-intake
description: >
  Invention disclosure first-pass screen — novelty, obviousness, §101
  eligibility, bar dates, detectability, and strategic value. Use when an
  invention disclosure comes in and needs triage on whether to pursue a
  prior-art search and patent counsel review, investigate further, or decline.
argument-hint: "[paste or describe the invention disclosure — or just the title and I'll ask]"

/invention-intake

**This is a first-pass screen by a non-specialist, not a patentability opinion.** The screen never concludes that an invention is patentable — it concludes that it passes the initial screen and warrants a prior-art search and registered-practitioner review, that it needs more information, or that it hits a disqualifier. A prior-art search is a separate step; this skill does not do one.

Instructions

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`. If the practice profile shows trademark- or copyright-only (no patent practice), say so and route the user elsewhere — this is the wrong tool. 2. Follow the workflow below. 3. Run intake. If the user pasted or uploaded a disclosure, read it. If not, ask the seven intake questions (what / problem / differences / inventors / public disclosure / status / technology area) in one batch and wait. 4. Run the six screens: novelty signals, obviousness flags, § 101 eligibility, public disclosure / bar dates, detectability, strategic value. Each screen gets a ✓ / 🟡 / 🔴 verdict with one-line reasoning. 5. Write the invention screen memo to the matter folder (if a matter is active) or the practice outputs folder. Apply the work-product header per role. 6. Bottom-line verdict: **PURSUE** (schedule prior-art search and attorney review) / **INVESTIGATE** (needs more info on a specific open item) / **DECLINE** (state the concrete reason). Never say "patentable." 7. Close with the decision tree (prior-art search / inventor follow-up / specialist review / decline + thank-you / trade-secret route) and the non-lawyer gate if the role is non-lawyer. 8. If the screen hit a within-one-year US disclosure or any public disclosure with foreign rights in scope, flag at the top: **time-sensitive**.

This skill never concludes that an invention is patentable. If uncertain, flag — a registered patent attorney or agent decides.

Examples

/ip-legal:invention-intake "a new cache-eviction algorithm that uses a learned model rather than LRU; conceived Q1 this year, not yet disclosed, engineering prototype in internal staging"

/ip-legal:invention-intake

(And the skill will ask for the invention, the problem it solves, how it differs, inventors, public disclosure status, usage status, and technology area.)

---

THIS IS A FIRST-PASS SCREEN, NOT A PATENTABILITY OPINION

**Say this at the top of every output. Do not drop it, do not soften it.**

> **This is a first-pass screen by a non-specialist, not a patentability > opinion.** A patentability opinion requires a prior-art search, full claim > construction, and the judgment of a registered patent attorney or agent. This > screen does not do a prior-art search, does not assess what is in the art, and > does not construct claims. It screens for the obvious disqualifiers (the > invention is already on the market, it was publicly disclosed two years ago, > it is plainly an abstract idea) and the obvious go-aheads (new mechanism, > technical advance, recent conception, in-use secretly). Everything in between > needs a prior-art search and a registered practitioner's review. This screen > never concludes that something is "patentable" — it concludes that it "passes > the initial screen, warrants investigation" or that it does not.

Under-flagging an invention that should have been filed is a one-way door — the one-year US bar runs, foreign rights are lost at first public disclosure, the competitor files first. Over-flagging just means a prior-art search that comes back empty. Stay on the two-way door side.

---

Matter context

**Matter context.** Check `## Matter workspaces` in the practice-level CLAUDE.md. If `Enabled` is `✗` (the default for in-house users), skip the rest of this paragraph — skills use practice-level context and the matter machinery is invisible. If enabled and there is no active matter, ask: "Which matter is this for? Run `/ip-legal:matter-workspace switch <slug>` or say `practice-level`." Load the active matter's `matter.md` for matter-specific context and overrides. Write outputs to the matter folder at `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/ip-legal/matters/<matter-slug>/`. Never read another matter's files unless `Cross-matter context` is `on`.

Invention disclosures are particularly common candidates for **clean-team** or **heightened** confidentiality at matter-open. Respect the matter's confidentiality marking from `matter.md`. Invention content is inherently sensitive — do not summarize, quote, or reference it outside privileged channels.

---

Load the practice profile first

**Before reading the disclosure, read `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/ip-legal/CLAUDE.md`.** If it is missing or still contains placeholders, stop and run `/ip-legal:cold-start-interview`. The practice profile tells you:

• The company's **patent filing strategy** — offensive (building an assertion

portfolio), defensive (filing to protect freedom to operate), hybrid, or licensing-revenue. This determines the strategic-value bar.

• The **technology areas of interest** — where the company files and where it

does not. An invention that falls outside the areas of interest is often a decline even if the technical screen is clean.

• The **filing budget posture** — aggressive (file everything that passes the

screen), selective (file the best few), or minimal (only what the business nee