Infringement Analysis in New York.

A patent infringement analysis New York companies can rely on starts with a claim chart that maps every asserted claim element to the accused product. New York is among the most active patent-litigation markets in the country: the Southern District of New York (SDNY) is a leading venue, and the city is home to global finance, fashion, media and pharmaceutical brands whose disputes also run at the ITC and the USPTO’s PTAB. Whether you are a patent owner deciding whom to assert against or a company served with a complaint, the case turns on how precisely the claims read on the product. PerspireIP builds litigation-grade claim charts and evidence-of-use (EoU) analysis for both sides across New York.

Where a patent infringement analysis New York case is heard

Patent infringement is exclusively a federal question, so a New York suit is filed in a U.S. district court, not a state court. Manhattan-seated cases go to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, whose main courthouse is the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street in Lower Manhattan, with additional seats in White Plains and Poughkeepsie. The SDNY spans eight counties — New York, Bronx, Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Orange, Dutchess and Sullivan — and is consistently one of the busiest and fastest patent dockets in the United States.

Cases arising in Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island and on Long Island are heard instead in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (EDNY). Under the Supreme Court’s TC Heartland decision, a company can be sued for patent infringement only where it is incorporated or where it has a regular, established place of business and has committed acts of infringement. Because so many brands are headquartered in Manhattan, that test is readily met in the SDNY — which is exactly why an early infringement read is worth doing before anyone files.

• SDNY (Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street) — the leading Manhattan venue where infringement and validity are tried
• EDNY (Brooklyn) — the district covering the outer boroughs and Long Island
• PTAB — inter partes review of validity, decided nationally on patents and printed publications
• ITC — Section 337 exclusion actions against infringing imports, on a compressed schedule
• Federal Circuit — all patent appeals, from the district courts, the PTAB and the ITC

How claim charts and evidence-of-use analysis work

An infringement analysis lives or dies on the claim chart. A claim chart is a two-column device: the left column breaks the asserted claim into its successive limitations, and the right column maps each limitation to a specific feature, function or component of the accused product or service. When every limitation is matched with cited evidence, the chart shows infringement; when even one limitation is missing, it shows a non-infringement defense. This element-by-element discipline is the same whether you are asserting a patent or defending against one.

Evidence of use (EoU) is what fills the right-hand column. For a patent owner, EoU analysis identifies infringing products in the market and proves the match with datable, citable sources; for an accused company, the same rigor exposes the gaps in an opponent’s read. Good evidence comes from many places, and every citation must be traceable and dated.

• Product manuals, datasheets, developer and API documentation, and technical white papers
• Marketing pages, spec sheets, FAQs, teardown reports and product photographs
• Source-code review, network captures and standards-essential mappings where a claim reads on a standard
• SEC filings, catalogs and archived web pages that fix a public-availability date

Because claim scope is set by claim construction, a careful analysis flags the terms most likely to be disputed and charts the claim under more than one reasonable reading. That is how a chart survives a Markman hearing rather than collapsing at the first argument over what a term means.

New York industries that drive infringement disputes

New York’s economy shapes the patents it litigates, and each sector charts differently. Finance and fintech — trading platforms, payment rails, clearing and settlement systems and market-data technology — generate software and business-method claims where the accused feature is often buried in back-end architecture and must be read out of documentation, not marketing copy. Charting these claims means pinning an abstract limitation to a concrete, provable system function, often read out of API references, engineering blogs and regulatory disclosures rather than any customer-facing page.

Fashion and luxury make New York a design-patent capital. From the Garment District to the flagship houses on Fifth and Madison Avenues, apparel, footwear, handbags, jewelry and packaging are protected by design patents, where infringement turns on the ordinary observer test rather than element-by-element utility limitations. A design chart compares the patented figures side by side with the accused article. Media, advertising and adtech — a Madison Avenue mainstay — add streaming, content-delivery and ad-serving claims to the mix.

• Finance and fintech — trading, payments, clearing and market-data software and business-method claims
• Fashion and luxury — design patents on apparel, footwear, accessories and packaging, judged by the ordinary-observer test
• Media and adtech — streaming, content delivery, ad-serving and analytics technology
• Pharma and biotech — antibody, formulation and biologics claims, with Regeneron in Tarrytown and Pfizer in Manhattan

Pharmaceutical and biotech disputes are a New York staple too. Regeneron’s Tarrytown campus sits inside the SDNY, and the company has litigated antibody and VEGF-receptor patents in that court against Genentech and Merus, while Pfizer is headquartered in Manhattan. Biologics claims demand a different chart entirely — sequence, mechanism and formulation limitations matched to the accused molecule.

For patent owners: building an assertion-ready case

If you own the patent, the infringement analysis is your foundation for everything that follows — a demand letter, a licensing negotiation, or a complaint filed at 500 Pearl Street. Before you assert, you need to know that the claims genuinely read on the target’s product and that your evidence will hold up. A weak or overreaching chart invites a fee-shifting motion, a declaratory-judgment counter-suit or a validity challenge at the PTAB, so the analysis has to be honest about the claim’s real scope.

A strong EoU package also does the commercial work of identifying which defendants and products are worth pursuing, and how strong each read is. The SDNY’s Patent Case Management Plan requires the patentee to serve infringement contentions early, in claim-chart form, so the work you commission before filing is the same work the court will demand soon after.

• Pre-suit infringement read to confirm the claims cover the accused product
• Evidence-of-use charts that survive claim construction and Rule 11 scrutiny
• Target and portfolio screening to rank which products and defendants to pursue
• Contentions ready for the SDNY’s early disclosure deadlines and licensing talks

For accused companies: reading the complaint against you

If you have been served, or you have received a demand letter, the first question is whether the patentee’s chart actually holds together. A defense-side patent infringement analysis New York accused parties commission tests each limitation the plaintiff asserts and hunts for the element that is missing, different or not present at all — because a claim requires every limitation, a single gap defeats literal infringement. From there the analysis maps the design-around options and frames the invalidity themes that pair with non-infringement.

Timing matters. A defendant that wants to challenge the patent’s validity at the PTAB must file its inter partes review within one year of being served, so the infringement and invalidity reads have to run together from day one. An accused importer may also face a parallel ITC complaint on a much faster clock. The earlier the analysis starts, the more room you keep to negotiate, design around or attack.

• Non-infringement charts that isolate the missing or distinguishable claim limitations
• Design-around analysis to move the product outside the claim scope
• Coordinated invalidity strategy to feed a district-court defense or a PTAB petition
• Rapid triage of demand letters before the one-year IPR bar or an ITC clock runs

The ITC and Section 337: infringement on a compressed clock

Many New York brands make or source goods abroad, which pulls their disputes toward the U.S. International Trade Commission. Under Section 337, the ITC investigates imported articles accused of infringing a U.S. patent and can issue an exclusion order barring them from entry — a remedy that can run in parallel with, or instead of, an SDNY suit. For a fashion house, electronics brand or consumer-goods company, an import ban is an existential threat, and for a patent owner it is powerful leverage.

The ITC is a fact-pleading forum: a complaint must include detailed claim charts mapping the imported articles to every asserted claim, and the investigation moves on a schedule far faster than a district-court docket. That makes the infringement analysis both more demanding and more urgent. A complainant needs charts strong enough to survive Commission scrutiny from the outset, and a respondent needs its non-infringement and invalidity read finished before the accelerated hearing before the administrative law judge closes the record.

• Detailed claim charts mapping every imported article to each asserted claim limitation
• Domestic-industry evidence tied to the patent that a complainant must establish
• Non-infringement and invalidity charts finished before the accelerated hearing closes the record
• Coordination with any parallel SDNY suit pending on the same patent family

How PerspireIP builds a patent infringement analysis New York case

Every engagement follows the same disciplined path, whether you are asserting or defending. We start by parsing the asserted claims into their limitations, flag the terms that claim construction will likely turn on, and chart the claim under each reasonable reading. Then we gather evidence of use from the sources that actually govern the technology — documentation and source for a fintech platform, teardowns and photographs for a design patent, sequence and formulation data for a biologic — and we date every citation so it holds up under cross-examination.

• Element-by-element claim charts mapping each limitation to the accused product or article
• Evidence-of-use collection with a provable public-availability date for every citation
• Non-infringement and design-around analysis for accused companies and importers
• Charts scaled to the forum — SDNY or EDNY contentions, an ITC complaint, or a PTAB record
• A written opinion coordinated with your litigators and any parallel invalidity search

We work as a specialist search-and-charting partner alongside your New York trial counsel, deliver to court, ITC and PTAB deadlines, and keep every engagement confidential. Whether you are a patent owner scoping an assertion, a brand served in the SDNY, or an importer facing a Section 337 complaint, we scale to fit — a single chart, a multi-product EoU study or ongoing litigation support. Send us the patent number and the accused product, and we will scope your patent infringement analysis New York project within one business day.

IP Landscape & Resources in New York

Key intellectual-property authorities and venues relevant to New York:

• U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York — the leading Manhattan federal trial court (Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street) that hears patent infringement and validity
• United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) — grants U.S. patents and, through the PTAB, hears inter partes review challenges to their validity
• U.S. International Trade Commission — Section 337 — investigates infringing imports on a fast schedule and can issue exclusion orders barring their entry
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — hears all patent appeals, including from the SDNY, the EDNY, the PTAB and the ITC

Request a Patent Infringement Analysis in New York

Explore related PerspireIP services: Patent Infringement Analysis · Prior Art Litigation Search · Patent Invalidation.

Frequently Asked Questions