Patent Design-Around

[@feicheng7022]

This is really helpful. I just designed around another product and was confusing if there was still a risk of infringing others patent. This video clearly explains the aspects of independent claim and I am no longer worry on it. Thank you.

[@687805]

Very good explanation! Thank you!

[@TheSharad97]

Nicely explained....great video

[@mrdeeman5912]

But wouldn't adding additional claims in the form of additional designs to achieve the same result as a way to prevent design arounds result in different patents altogether? If you invent a product that does the same thing but with multiple completely different designs wouldn't that be a completely different design pattern? how can you include multiple designs in one patent? Is that allowed?

[@696pk]

this needs a reply

[@jonathanbaptiste7733]

Very nice. Except all ofnthose trolls out there taking out very broad patents and not developing is the very reason we have so few products on the market today. They destroy creativity. I say you should first have designed the product, then take out a design patent and furthermore if you are not going to goto market not be able to hold a patent. When you start researching it you will notice how many trolls out there hold patents and do nothing with them.... and we complain about Big Co that only provide us with limited products.......

[@giusepperinaldi9411]

That's exactly what I think! It's not fair to allow trolls to patent ideas that are impossible to realise. First realize, then you get a patent!

[@climbers1376]

Incredible thank you!

[@prashant1abcde]

nicely explained to avoid infringement....as there are so many people specially in china and around the globe who are ready to copy by doing little bit changes, so it is very important that it should be generalised so that no one can make infringment....thanks for great video.

[@inventitious1609]

Great Explanation!

[@philipc8731]

Thank you for such a brilliantly explained video. On your point of trying to protect a widget with A, B, and C, and there is an existing device with A & B. In the case of an iron with an accelerometer, would it be infringement to patent an iron with an accelerometer AND a light? Would this not allow you to essentially copy another invention, through addition of an irrelevant feature? Thanks!

[@arrowstheorem1881]

What happens if i just write the GENERAL claim without the specific embodiments? Would this not lead to faster grant and cheaper drafting? What is the main difference between including the embodiments which to me sounds like Limiting vs Just the general claim without the specific embodiments?

[@jihoonkang686]

But for Device 1 (infringement example) it would not be infringing but it would be barred from novelty thus unpatentable in the first place?

[@nattyphysicist]

So this new iron infringes on all existing irons?

[@mr.random8447]

What about Doctrine of Equivalence? In the first example, The claim specified touch sensor and the person got around it because an accelerometer. But would the doctrine of equivalence protect the patent of the specific touch sensor claim? Since they both have the same function.

[@InventorsQuickTips]

That's a great question... typically that doctrine applies to items that have a similar function (e.g. rivets vs. screws, both are used to fasten pieces of material). Because a touch sensor and an accelerometer have different functions (even though both were used in the iron to achieve a similar end result), it is likely that doctrine would not apply to our hypothetical example. Thanks for watching.

[@mr.random8447]

Inventor's Quick Tips The rivet and screw method are different, but the end result is the same (fasten pieces). The touch sensor and accelerometer methods are different, but the end result is the same (auto-shut off). Not sure if the doctrine of equivalence applies to the method to achieve the result or the end result? Obviously some methods are superior to others. It would be odd in my opinion for doctrine of equivalence to group rivers and screws in the same because there are situations when you would use the other.

[@joephantom8288]

Smart! Although I believe, that if the competitor use the same concept, that should be infringement. What's the difference my car and changing the license.😐🥀 Thank you very much

[@p0k7lm]

Thanks for video !

[@arbit3r]

awesome thank you

[@pabloamaya293]

Loved it, you helped so much, thank you!

[@InventorsQuickTips]

Glad it helped!

[@Bartetmedia]

Perfect!

[@________________________59]

This is incorrect advice. 5:57 does not outline a “generalized” claim. The word “device” invokes means plus function (112f), and therefore, you are limited to embodiments in the Spec. You should not be giving legal advice if you are not an attorney. It’s against the law. And your disclaimer at the beginning doesn’t immunize you either.

[@tratberemodacon1786]

Your just jealous you’re not as smart. Stop making stuff up you’re not the expert he is you don’t know anything.

[@lenteisenhowerd844]

Stop lying. Your no lawyer your a liar. This guy is a real patent agent and your neither so stop lying. You have no proof of your false claims and If their so true where’s you stupid videos. It’s ok to be jealous but don’t act like you know everything.