Print

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

[philkopacz]

I have a question around a number of dependent claims. 

If a patent has a number of dependent claims and another product shares 90% of those claims but 1 or more of the dependent claims does not apply to the product is it still considered infringing?

For instance, (I selected a random patent) if you take Patent #7,958,307 which has 16 separate claims.  If another method shares 15 of these claims but lets say claim #3 (3. The method of claim 1, wherein selecting storage system clients for a group is based on a template.) is not shared.  Is this still infringing on the patent or does a product have to have all 16 claims in common in order to be considered infringing.

As a second part to the question.  The above patent has two independent claims each with 7 dependent claims.  If you find that one of the independent claims with its  seven dependencies applies to the product completely but some of the 2nd independent claims seven dependent claims do not does this still infringe on the patent or do all claims whether independent or dependent have to be in common in order for it to be considered infringement.


Thanks for your help.

[OMG IP]

Simplification: If you practice all the elements of any single claim, then you infringe that claim.

[khazzah]

I'll restate what OMG said: you don't infringe a patent, you infringe a claim.

[philkopacz]

Simplification: If you practice all the elements of any single claim, then you infringe that claim.

So just to clarify....if you have a patent one independent claim with 7 dependent claims and share the elements of the independent claim and 6 of its dependents but do not share the element of the 7th dependent then you are NOT infringing on the Patent?

[OMG IP]

Simplification: If you practice all the elements of any single claim, then you infringe that claim.

So just to clarify....if you have a patent one independent claim with 7 dependent claims and share the elements of the independent claim and 6 of its dependents but do not share the element of the 7th dependent then you are NOT infringing on the Patent?

I read this 3 times and it still didn't make sense... sorry.

[noobie]

Simplification: If you practice all the elements of any single claim, then you infringe that claim.

So just to clarify....if you have a patent one independent claim with 7 dependent claims and share the elements of the independent claim and 6 of its dependents but do not share the element of the 7th dependent then you are NOT infringing on the Patent?

You infringe the patent if you infringe on just one of the claims.

[JimIvey]

And, to infringe any one claim, you have to infringe all of the elements of the claim.

Regards.

[khazzah]

Simplification: If you practice all the elements of any single claim, then you infringe that claim.

So just to clarify....if you have a patent one independent claim with 7 dependent claims and share the elements of the independent claim and 6 of its dependents but do not share the element of the 7th dependent then you are NOT infringing on the Patent?

We're saying that it doesn't make sense to talk about "infringing the patent". You are liable if you infringe one or more claims of a patent.

Jim addresses the important point of what it means to infringe a claim: you practice every element of the claim.

[Ghoti]

Explaining the above another way.

Claim 1. A device that does has element A.
Claim 2. The device of claim 1, wherein element A has a B.
Claim 3. The device of claim 2, wherein B is yellow.
Claim 4. A device that has element B
Claim 5. The device of claim 4, element B has A.

In this example, if your product has A (but no B) then you would infringe only Claim 1. As such you infringe one claim of the patent and people describe this as 'infringing the patent' (but as others have said, technically you don't infringe a patent, you infringe one or more claims of a patent).

The purpose of all the independent and dependent claims is to maximise catching an infringer. For example, if a product has Element A and B, and during a legal battle, Claim 1 is found to be invalid due to prior art...then the back up claim 2 comes into play, and the product is still found to infringe. The purpose of Claim 4 is to catch those products that have B's but no A's.

Simplistically put, the aim when drafting a set of claims is to have at least one claim catch every potential product related to the invention.