I would like to get some clarification regarding how method claim works. I’m developing a diagnostic system in the line of invention described in http://www.google.com/patents/WO2014201088A1?cl=en .

That is, I am creating a detection system that would require me to follow four steps in the method described in claim 1. However the diagnostic method described in claim 4 that follows claim 1 is different in my case (i.e. a different physics to detect same particles). My question is will I be infringing claim 1 of the patent if I use the same steps but on step four use different tool? Does claim 1 cover all possible type of diagnostic method including these four steps? Also, what if I add a step in between step 3 and 4 in claim 1 ? Will that be considered as a new method? Or what if I use only 3 of the 4 steps? I’ll appreciate any response/advice on this matter.


WO2014201088A1 is not a patent. It is a published international application, which can never issue as a patent. It has entered the national stage in the US as Application No. PCT/US2014/41863, and is currently pending.

I think your situation is this. Claim 1 of the prior art reference gives a method of 4 steps. You perform all 4 steps in your method. Claim 4 of the prior art specifies how the fourth step is done; you do it differently in your method.

Assuming your judgment that your steps are identical is correct,

1) Generally yes, you will be infringing claim 1 of the prior art. If their patented method comprises 4 steps, then any other method comprising those 4 steps as recited would infringe claim 1.

2) Yes, every method which includes the 4 steps recited would infringe claim 1.

3) If you add a step between 3 and 4, but still perform steps 1, 2, 3, and 4, then you will be infringing claim 1.

In this case, you may be eligible for a patent if your new step makes a novel, non-obvious method; however, if you do get a patent, the prior art (assuming the application issues as a patent) would block you from using your method without a license. (If the prior art inventors wanted to practice your method, they would also have to obtain a license from you in this case.)

4) Yes, if your method adds a fifth step to claim 1 which is not disclosed in any prior art reference, then your method would be considered new.

5) If you use only 3 of the 4 steps recited in claim 1, then your method would not infringe the prior art reference. In this case, a patent issuing from the prior art reference would not block your patent or require you to take a license, since your invention is outside the scope of their broadest claim.

You can't not infringe a patent by taking the invention and adding something else to it. If you improve it, you may be eligible for a patent yourself and will be able to block others from using your improvement, but you're still practicing the original invention - just in an improved form.

Think of patent rights like property rights, where you have a right to keep others from trespassing, but not necessarily a right to walk on your property. If you own a piece of land (a patent for your new and non-obvious invention), someone else who owned a ring of land surrounding yours could block you from access to your land - it's yours, but all paths to it lead through private property. You cannot access your property without their permission (getting a license) to pass through their property. Similarly, if they decide they want to cut across your land (use your improvement to their invention), you can block them or force them to take a license.

Good luck!


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.