Working draft · internal strategy review · not legal advice
Claim Chart 工作稿
目的不是在网页上完成法律意见，而是把技术事实、claim element、落入程度、反制论点和 deal action 放在一张可复核的表里。
Claim Chart Summary
| Claim element | What it requires | Our current fact | Match status | Counterargument | Confidence | Deal action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EP homolog scope | EP claim 1 reaches homologs retaining at least 70% identity. | Local analysis says Cocal vs VSV-G identity is about 71.7%. | Partial / material risk | Claim breadth exceeds examples; Cocal-G 354 is not disclosed as an embodiment. | Technical identity fact: high; legal coverage: medium. | Europe separate pricing; no uncapped indemnity. |
| 354 equivalent mutation | Mutation at VSV-G 354 or equivalent position in homolog. | Our construct uses Cocal-G 354 equivalent position. | Risk point | Equivalent-position mapping and functional limitation require expert charting. | Risk assumption: high; final claim chart needed. | Disclose as known issue; limit to asserted valid claims. |
| Second mutation | Target patent focuses on specified 47/354 equivalent logic. | User confirmed the other mutation site does not fall into the target patent. | No current match | Confirm no dependent claim or doctrine-of-equivalents theory reaches it. | Current internal fact: medium-high. | State only one feature is in asserted zone; reject full-product base. |
| Functional limitations | Claim requires retained membrane fusion and altered receptor interaction behavior. | Need final product assay / construct data mapped to claim language. | Needs evidence | Non-infringement may turn on whether all functional limitations are met. | Insufficient without experimental mapping. | Reserve right to complete non-infringement opinion before launch. |
| U.S. claim structure | US12091434B2 is narrower than EP; listed homolog/dependent claim structure matters. | Cocal-related sequence groups appear in the U.S. family but not as simple 70% language. | Medium | Each asserted U.S. claim must be charted separately; no EP-to-US shortcut. | Medium pending counsel chart. | U.S. indemnity only for specifically asserted valid/enforceable claims. |
| China mainland | There must be granted local claim coverage. | Local analysis indicates no China mainland layout. | Excluded | Reopen only if new local patent coverage is found. | Medium-high from local analysis. | Express exclusion from royalty base and patent-family indemnity. |
Key Takeaways
What we concede
354 equivalent position creates a real asserted-zone issue, especially in Europe under the EP 70% homolog language.
What we do not concede
We do not concede full product infringement, global damages base, China mainland exposure, or validity of broad homolog claims.
What must be proven
Every asserted claim element, including functional limitations, must map to the final commercial construct in a valid and enforceable jurisdiction.
Deal consequence
Risk allocation should track claim coverage, territory, validity, and MNC conduct rather than operate as a blanket indemnity.