0

Suppose that there is a product whoes patent has been approved and some other individual has made a product that works on the same principle(like gravitational force) but has a different product design(i.e getting the final output in different ways but by using same principle). I viewed some of the patent examples on the web and I every patent I noticed that they are writing that "our product embodiments are not restricted to only the mechanism discussed in the description but can also use different mechanism to achieve the required output".

In case the second person wants to apply for a patent for its product will his product be subjected to piration as the person with approved patent must have mentioned the above statement in his patent.

5
  • 1
    The our product thing relates to the stuff described in the patent not to any real product. And btw., I don't remember ever having seen that wording. – DonQuiKong Jul 26 '20 at 17:40
  • Yes it is related to stuff described in the patent – Tank Jul 26 '20 at 17:42
  • No that's not what I mean. Patent law doesnt care what stuff the owner produces. Only what is written in the patent matters. – DonQuiKong Jul 26 '20 at 17:43
  • Could you please explain using an example:) – Tank Jul 26 '20 at 18:10
  • So basically if the patent covers rockets of type ab it doesn't matter if the company sells real rockets, toys or just gummy bears, the patent still covers rockets of type ab. – DonQuiKong Jul 27 '20 at 21:16
1

A patent can't monopolize all uses of a law or force of nature nor can it monopolize a result. The famous case is Morse. Samuel Morse got claim wording that was extremely broad and a dispute went to the Supreme Court. The holding said -

"Professor Morse has not discovered that the electric or galvanic current will always print at a distance, no matter what may be the form of the machinery or mechanical contrivances through which it passes." Morse did not enable others to do more than make the repeater system that he described. Other persons may discover and disclose to the public other ways to use electromagnetic force to transmit messages, and the other ways may be cheaper or work better.

Many devices or methods can achieve the same result and be separately patented.

For you to get a patent you need to have a concept that is new and not obvious in light of whatever else has already been done or published anywhere anytime. Words in someones else's patent like -

the method and the weaving machine according to the invention presented in the claims are not restricted to the exemplary embodiments which have been illustrated and described, but rather may also encompass variants and combinations thereof which are within the scope of the claims.

do not constitute any technical substance that, by itself, gets in the way of you getting a patent for a variation on something the application covers.

There are two separate issues that you might have conflated (1) can you get a patent for a new variation (2) does your variation fall under one of the claims of someone else's patent. Your phase "wants to apply for a patent for its product will his product be subjected to piration as the person" shows this confusion of mixing up patentablity of your concept and your potential product infringing someone else's patent.

If your invention is obvious in light of the technical information in a patent (or patent application or magazine article) then you can't get a patent.

A different criteria applies to the question of you infringing a patent by producing and selling your own invention. Does your invention fall under the scope of their claims? Assume your product uses a different mechanism to that shown in the patent but does fall within the scope of a claim. Now the question will be if the claim is enabled across its scope. That means could a person of ordinary skill in the art make your invention after having read the patent. The boilerplate words do not really help the inventor show infringement.

1
  • An example might make this clearer. – Eric S Jul 27 '20 at 2:06
1

What is covered in a patent is defined by the claims and only the claims. Many people read patents and greatly overestimate the broadness of coverage. Focus on the claims and understand that to infringe on a claim it is necessary to implement each and every element of that claim. Thus if a claim says something like: "a method including steps A, B, C and D", if your product only uses steps A, B and C, you don't infringe. Long and involved claims are therefore narrower than short claims. Dependent claims which cite other claims include all the steps of the cited claim.

Also understand that if you discover a patentable improvement to an existing invention, while you might obtain a patent for the improvement, this does not mean you avoid infringement of the existing patent. As an example the pneumatic tire is an invention. If during the term of that patent someone gets a patent for a radial ply pneumatic tire, a new patent might be obtained for the arrangement of the tire plys. However for the term of the original patent it would impact freedom to operate.

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.