3 ms·
That's incorrect. An invention is infringing an issued patent if it includes all the elements of any independent claim. Dependent claims, in this case 2 - 5 (
by roc 17y ago
That's incorrect. An invention is infringing an issued patent if it includes all the elements of any independent claim.
Dependent claims, in this case 2 - 5 (the ones that refer to another claim), add specificity, but do not narrow the scope of the original independent claim. They exist as a legal tactic; helping to ensure that a more specific variant of the invention is covered, in the event that the parent claim is later invalidated (ruled too broad, revoked upon discovery of prior art, struck after re-examination, etc).
- sp332 17y agoBut in case of a legal dispute, it may be that only certain contested claims are ruled illegitimate. So it makes sense to have many claims ranging from less to more specific, instead of having a few specific claims, so that maybe a somewhat wider claim will make it through a legal dispute.
- roc 17y agoThere's absolutely a lot of legal strategy in developing claims. There are very good reasons that top firms hire specialized IP lawyers. All that is, however, an aside. The original point stands: If this patent issues, any competing invention that merely contains all the elements of that broad independent claim, would be infringing. Those more-specific dependent claims are only a concern if you plan on prevailing in court against the broad one. As setting foot in a courtroom is a net loss for most innovators, the very existence of those dependent claims is essentially irrelevant.