I have a situation where I need to protect the "value" which can be used in multiple steps.

The value may be same for all steps, but sometimes it can different. I want to protect the value especially when it is same for all steps.

The value provided by the step will be compared with a list of values we have in our system.

wherein the value of step 1 matches at least one of the values of the system

Would that cover all steps when the value is same? Or I would lose the case when my potential infringer argue like "No, we are using the value of step X"?

  • Not too clear what you are asking - Do you think the infringers steps are numbered differently from yours? They are not.
    – George White
    Dec 15, 2019 at 3:53
  • Sorry - it went from not enough information to way more information than I want to absorb.
    – George White
    Dec 15, 2019 at 21:36
  • @GeorgeWhite No worries. I figured the strategy using europeist answer. Dec 15, 2019 at 22:38
  • @GeorgeWhite For the record, I'm really glad people like you and europeist are here. You are immensely helpful for pro se inventors like me. Thanks for being here. Dec 15, 2019 at 22:42

1 Answer 1


If all the steps are defined such that you refer to the value, then yes, it is the same for all the steps. The value itself would be different in one or more steps if one step is something like "updating the value such that the value is zero", but then probably you would have clarity problems if the sequence of the steps cannot be determined from the matter claimed.

One way of not limiting the claim to the value is have both options in the steps, e.g. "searching on the Internet with the first value or a second value as a keyword" (the first value = the value). Another way would be introducing different values in all the steps (first, second, third...), then add a dependent claim that says "wherein the first, second and third values are the same".

  • @Giri Even though I am quite used to IT inventions, I have limited knowledge of the particular part that your inventions deal with. That said, based on my understanding thereof, I would say yes, that clause should cover the situation you describe. You know the drill: as long as what is in the claim is found in the method analyzed, then direct infringement exists. In any case, you may want to go deeper and have dependent claims with features/steps that also read on an infringing method. Dec 15, 2019 at 11:29
  • Thanks very much for confirming. Dec 15, 2019 at 16:03

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .