Why is it many newer patents, such as in US10421637, A cranking mechanism, the independent claim 1 is almost entirely repeated in claim 8, except for a small change? I do not find this in older patents.


I often write claims that might cover essentially the same thing but in different language. It is some protection from a court that might misconstrue some word or wording in one of the claims. Depending on how old the patents you are comparing this with, they might be from a time when “ a portion of “ included a whole of, when “one or more” was never interpreted as excluding the case of one and when “and” never meant “or” (I’m a patent agent). We now need defensive claiming.

Another speculation relates to the series of “Festo” cases. The importance of this has faded but this series of cases said that the breadth of interpretations of a claim was significant reduced if that claim was ever amended. Adding a slightly different claim rather than amending a claim might have made sense.

This is an answer regarding U.S. practice.

| improve this answer | |

I'm not a lawyer but I've worked with several on my patents. There is a lot of art in drafting claims and I don't think this is a particularly new phenomenon. Claim 1 and 8 are not identical. In particular:

From claim 1: "...a clutch is retained on said crank shaft, said clutch includes a drive gear;..."

From claim 8: "...a clutch is retained on said crank shaft between said one way bearing and said tightening device, said clutch includes a drive gear;..."

I often see this pattern of having slightly narrower versions of independent claims. There must be a legal reason. Perhaps a patent attorney or agent will comment on that.

| improve this answer | |
  • I did say "almost" entirely repeated. I was guessing it was a correction they put it there, but that seemed like a strange way of doing it. I have been seeing this in patents 10 years old or newer as I've been doing prior art research. I had not read about this method anywhere. – Pro Se Hole Nov 21 '19 at 22:05

Possibility one: the applicant wants as many patents as possible for an invention with the aim of gaining bargaining power in negotiating cross-license or a patent pool. As you may know, the number of patents a party has is one of the critical factors to determine how much money s/he can get from the license negotiation or a patent pool.

Possibility two: The applicant may want to avoid the "double patenting" rejection but at the same time want to keep the application alive (pending) by repeating divisional applications in order to amend the claim according to the market condition.

| improve this answer | |
  • Could you explain how more claims in a single patent leads to more patents? – Eric Shain Nov 21 '19 at 17:49
  • I think you misunderstand the question. Sometimes a continuation appliation has claims with similar scope to a parent application but worded differently - that is not the case the OP is asking about. – George White Nov 21 '19 at 20:45

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.