Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[fastline]

I will try to explain this generally so as to help with the understanding.  Lets say an inventor patented a "folding" sight that sits on top of a barrel and folds with a hinge.  I have a new idea that would still be a "folding sight" but would operate differently and not with a hinge, does this seem like something that would cross the lines of infringement?

for another angle at this, someone patents a PC monitor holder with a pivot in a certain spot and clearly identified in a patent.  I too want to make a pivoting monitor holder but mine works differently and pivots with different components but ultimately still pivots.  Would this be an issue?

To add to this, I have noted that a particular patent holder is not even adhering to their own patent in their designs yet still marking their product as patented.  I am confident that there are still elements in the design that are following the patent but was not sure if all elements or claims had to fit?


I guess one of the things confusing me in the patent is not understanding by the description what is actually being patented and what is simply in the drawings for representation.  For instance, if there is a flyout and number, does that mean that it is fully described, therefore is part of a patent? IE, multiple claims in one patent?

[khazzah]

... not understanding by the description what is actually being patented and what is simply in the drawings for representation.  For instance, if there is a flyout and number, does that mean that it is fully described, therefore is part of a patent? IE, multiple claims in one patent?

What is being patented is the *claims*. Not the title. Not the abstract. Not the drawings. Not the detailed description.

A product that includes *every element* in one of the *claims* of the issued patent is an infringing product.

[fastline]

I guess I was a little confused in the patent docs because there is not a specific heading for "claims" as I seem to recall is pretty typical. 

Also, you did not really answer my question, would example above be "folding" as the key word regardless of "how" it folds?  I think I can come up with multiple examples where this would not really hold up as infringement but I could probably see it from both sides of the fence. 

[JimIvey]

I guess I was a little confused in the patent docs because there is not a specific heading for "claims" as I seem to recall is pretty typical. 

Claims are the numbered sentence fragments at the end of a patent.  They usually follow one of the following introductions: (i) "We claim:", (ii) "I claim:", and (iii) "What is claimed is:"

Also, you did not really answer my question, would example above be "folding" as the key word regardless of "how" it folds?  I think I can come up with multiple examples where this would not really hold up as infringement but I could probably see it from both sides of the fence. 

If the claim specifies something about the manner of folding, than only that manner of folding is covered by the claim.  If the claim does not specify anything about the manner of folding, then all manners of folding are covered by the claim.

Questions about infringement really can't be answered in the abstract.  You have to have a claim and a device to compare.  Patent claims are like metes and bounds on a deed to land.  If I'm sitting a hundred feet from a house, am I on their property?  You don't know without looking at the deed and figuring out where the perimeter of the property is.  Same with patents.

Regards.