The Prosecutor’s Tool Box: How Many Claims?

Author: Adriana L. Burgy
Editor: Mark D. Sweet

Excess claim fees are nothing new and are used in many patent offices worldwide.  For example, the European Patent Office charges one claim fee for each of the 16th to the 50th claim, and then charges a higher fee for the 51st and each subsequent claim; the Japanese Patent Office charges a fee for filing a request for examination that is directly proportional to the number of claims; and the Chinese Patent Office charges for claims in excess of ten.  Here in the U.S., the basic filing fee includes three independent claims and a total of twenty claims, and many practitioners limit the number of claims to twenty in order to avoid excess claim fees.  Today in our post-grant proceeding world, however, do we need to rethink the number of claims we use to cover an invention?

A day does not go by without some aspect of a post-grant proceeding flashing in the legal headlines – institution rates, limited ability to amend the claims, district court stays, and PTAB estoppel.  Despite all of this noise, prosecution continues to be the frontline defense for the patentee.  And a simple, yet sometimes overlooked prosecution tool to aid the patentee is the seemingly rudimentary decision regarding the number of claims used to protect an invention.

That is, one can easily get lulled into prosecuting an application with a total of twenty claims and having three independent claims, i.e., paying the basic filing fee.  In some instances, that may well be sufficient to aptly cover an invention.  But today in this post-grant proceeding world, the number of claims, and the varied way in which the claims cover the invention, are approaches worth considering.

For example, having a wider selection of claims of varied scope may force a would-be-challenger, i.e., petitioner, to rely on not only combinations of references but also different combinations of references, thereby reducing the chance of institution of a post-grant proceeding.  At the same time, a wider selection of claims may increase the chance of survival of some claims to cover the invention, and importantly, the commercial product.  Dependent claims are also useful tools.  Dependent claims can be used to further refine the novel aspects of the invention by scope and aspect.  Careful thought should be placed into this subject matter so that the dependent claims do not merely recite additional elements already known in the prior art.

In drafting and prosecuting claims, some factors driving the decision as to how many claims should cover the invention include the technology itself, the prior art landscape, the value of the application, and the scope and coverage of related applications.  Walking through those considerations now, avoid or minimize issues and costs in the long term.  Think about it:  How many claims?

 

DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Tagged , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: