Re:Oracle Ordered to Reduce Claims Against Google From 132 to 3
by tzs on Thursday May 05, 2011 @11:50AM
(#2517804)
This is speculation, but it could be that it is completely pointless to try all the claims. Patent claims fall into two groups: independent claims and dependent claims.
Independent claims stand alone. Dependent claims depend on independent claims--they are basically special cases of the independent claims.
For instance, suppose chairs were new and patentable. An independent claim might be for "a device for sitting comprising a level surface to support the buttocks and 4 legs". Let's call that claim #1. Claim #2 might be "The device of claim #1 where the legs contact the floor at the corners of a rectangle". Claim #2 is a dependent claim of #1. Claim #3 might be "The device of claim #1 where the legs are made of metal". Claim #4 might be "The device of claim #3 where the legs are covered with cloth".
The complete set of claims in data structure terms forms a forrest of trees, one tree per independent claim, with the independent claim at the root, and the dependent claims as children.
Generally, the independent claims are the most general (and the most likely to be invalidated by prior art or failure to be non-obvious). The dependent claims get more and more specific the farther down they are in the tree of claims that springs from an independent claim.
All it takes is one valid infringed claim to stop the defendant. If he's infringing one of your claims, you get to stop him from making and selling his product without your permission, and you get damages for his past sales. If he's infringing 10 of your claims, you get the same thing. If he's infringing 100 claims, you get the same thing.
So what is the point of trying each and every claim? Pick the handful for which you can make your best case, and concentrate on those. If you can't win those, you probably could not win the others.
Independent claims stand alone. Dependent claims depend on independent claims--they are basically special cases of the independent claims.
For instance, suppose chairs were new and patentable. An independent claim might be for "a device for sitting comprising a level surface to support the buttocks and 4 legs". Let's call that claim #1. Claim #2 might be "The device of claim #1 where the legs contact the floor at the corners of a rectangle". Claim #2 is a dependent claim of #1. Claim #3 might be "The device of claim #1 where the legs are made of metal". Claim #4 might be "The device of claim #3 where the legs are covered with cloth".
The complete set of claims in data structure terms forms a forrest of trees, one tree per independent claim, with the independent claim at the root, and the dependent claims as children.
Generally, the independent claims are the most general (and the most likely to be invalidated by prior art or failure to be non-obvious). The dependent claims get more and more specific the farther down they are in the tree of claims that springs from an independent claim.
All it takes is one valid infringed claim to stop the defendant. If he's infringing one of your claims, you get to stop him from making and selling his product without your permission, and you get damages for his past sales. If he's infringing 10 of your claims, you get the same thing. If he's infringing 100 claims, you get the same thing.
So what is the point of trying each and every claim? Pick the handful for which you can make your best case, and concentrate on those. If you can't win those, you probably could not win the others.