I am looking into a new project for which there are a few similar technologies described in patents, but nothing that includes every novel feature I have in mind. However, one of them is written in an ambiguously broad way.
I want to develop a device that has features A, B, C, D, E, and F; let's call that patent1. Yet patent2 covers features A, B, C, D, and E. However, the way claims of patent2 are written in a way that implies a certain organization of components to accomplish features A-E. Is it possible to sell a device with only features A-E if the features are configured differently?
Claim 1 from patent2 reads something like:
A device for *overall purpose* comprising: a *Subunit1*; and a *Subunit2*; said *Subunit1* having: a *hardware1*, a *hardware2*, a *hardware3*, and a *software1*; and said *Subunit2* having: a *hardware4*, a *hardware5*, and wherein *Subunit2* can *accomplish feature A*, and wherein Subunit1 can *accomplish features B, C, D, and E* *Claim 2 is a method describing specific actions to use the subunits above to get features A-E"
Note: all punctuation and wording outside of ** is verbatim from the patent.
Based on how the subunits are described in patent2, can I sell a device like:
said *Subunit1* having: a *hardware1*, a *hardware2*, said *Subunit2* having: a *hardware3*, and a *software1*; and a *hardware4*, a *hardware5*, and wherein *Subunit2* can *accomplish feature A, B, C*, and wherein Subunit1 can *accomplish features D, and E*
I am assuming that I couldn't patent such a configuration, as it is probably obvious, but I am curious about where infringement standards fall on this topic. It seems to me that such a device should infringe on patent2, but the wording seems to narrowly describe the organization and (to some extent) the interconnection of components that could be avoided to achieve the same features.
I should also note that, patent2 is really an extension of other patents that cover the same concept and features A-E. The intention laid out in the description of patent2 is to add a more complex analytical package (say... feature G) on top of existing patents, yet the claims are only written to describe the necessary hardware components needed to implement that analysis. The problem is that the hardware components AND the analysis listed in the claim language are generic and not really specific to the goals of the description; feature G isn't mentioned in the claims. In my mind, they are obvious components of any solution to accomplish features A-E.
Hopefully removing the specifics of the application doesn't obscure the overall purpose of the question. I am trying to keep details of the project confidential.