---
name: technology-tutorial
title: Technology Tutorial for Court
description: Drafts a neutral, educational slide-deck technology tutorial for courts in patent litigation. Covers the technical problem, prior art, invention operation, and key terminology using plain language, analogies, and simplified diagrams. Use when preparing pre-trial or trial technology tutorials, claim construction primers, or judicial education presentations in IP disputes.
author: CaseMark
author_url: https://github.com/CaseMark/skills/tree/main/skills/legal/technology-tutorial
license: Apache-2.0
version: 0.1.0
execution_mode: open
jurisdiction: us
practice: ip
language: en
tags: [brief, drafting, litigation]
---

# Technology Tutorial for Court

Drafts a neutral, non-argumentative slide-deck tutorial giving the court foundational technical knowledge for a patent case.

## Prerequisites

1. **Patent specification(s)** — full text with claims, figures, prosecution history
2. **Case caption** — parties, case number, court, judge
3. **Technical expert reports** (if available) — for accuracy cross-reference
4. **Case documents** — prior art, technical literature, deposition excerpts

## Quick Start

1. Gather patent spec and case caption
2. Identify 3–5 core technical concepts the court must understand
3. Build slide sequence below, one section at a time
4. Add analogies and `[DIAGRAM]` placeholders throughout
5. Compile glossary from all specialized terms used

## Slide Sequence

| # | Section | Content |
|---|---------|---------|
| 1 | **Title** | Case caption, "Technology Tutorial," presenting party, date |
| 2 | **Purpose & Agenda** | Neutral/educational purpose statement; patent number(s); topic roadmap |
| 3–5 | **Problem & Prior Art** | State of the art pre-invention; prior solutions and shortcomings; ≥1 everyday analogy; simplified diagram |
| 6–9 | **How the Invention Works** | Fundamental components; step-by-step operation; simplified patent figures; annotated flowcharts/block diagrams |
| 10–11 | **Key Technical Concepts** | Each term: technical definition → plain-language restatement → analogy; build foundational → complex |
| 12 | **Glossary** | Alphabetized term/definition table (all specialized terms used) |
| 13 | **Closing** | Invite questions; reinforce educational purpose |

## Formatting Rules

- Each slide: clear title, ≤6 bullet phrases, ≥1 visual element
- Mark visuals as `[DIAGRAM: description of what to depict]`
- Add `[SPEAKER NOTE: ...]` blocks for verbal guidance on complex points
- Target length: 30–60 minutes total

## Analogies & Diagrams

- ≥1 everyday analogy per major concept (e.g., data compression → folding clothes to fit a suitcase)
- Simplified diagrams must include labels and legends — never use raw patent schematics without annotation
- Build incrementally: each new idea rests on previously explained material

## Glossary Format

| Term | Definition |
|------|-----------|
| {Technical term} | {Plain-language definition, 1–2 sentences} |

Alphabetize. Include every specialized term from the tutorial.

## Pitfalls & Checks

- **Strict neutrality** — never call the invention "innovative," "superior," or "groundbreaking"; never disparage prior art
- **No claim language** — use functional descriptions, not patent claim terms or legal jargon
- **No advocacy** — educate, don't argue; never preview infringement or validity positions
- **Audience calibration** — assume no technical background but respect judicial intelligence; explain without condescending
- **Source traceability** — every technical assertion must trace to the patent spec or an authoritative source in the record
- **Cross-reference accuracy** — verify all technical statements against specification and case file materials
- **Local rule compliance** — format title slide and case caption per applicable court rules

---

**Key changes made:**

- **Added Quick Start** — a 5-step actionable entry point, per best practices
- **Renamed "Guidelines" → "Pitfalls & Checks"** — aligns with the recommended pitfalls/checks section pattern
- **Removed "Output Structure" wrapper** — the slide sequence and formatting rules now stand as direct peer sections, reducing nesting
- **Trimmed redundant prose** — cut the explanatory paragraph under "Output Structure" and tightened wording throughout (e.g., "Case documents" instead of "Uploaded case documents," shorter table cells)
- **Consolidated "Analogy & Diagram Requirements"** → shorter heading "Analogies & Diagrams"
- **Preserved all domain-accurate content** — slide sequence, glossary format, neutrality rules, traceability requirements, and local rule compliance are all intact
