Low-quality patents have become
the “plagiarism guide” for competitors
The Importance of Claim Generalization from the Perspective of “Servo Motors”
Many managers mistakenly believe that “patent authorization means no worries,” thinking it can prevent competitors from copying technology or designs. The core of the patent system is “protection in exchange for disclosure.” In reality, if the drafting quality is not high, the disclosed technical solution may become a “plagiarism guide” for competitors.
In the following case, a patent for packaging machinery was withdrawn from a claim for 510,000 Yuan compensation just 12 days after filing due to an incorrect expression of a technical term in the claims. What went wrong?
Core Defect of the Patent in Question: The Limitation of “Servo Motor” is Too Narrow, Restricting the Scope of Protection
Key Expression of Claim 1
The patent in question (CN201510260428.4) is for “a plastic bag heat sealing machine,” and its independent claim 1 includes the technical feature: “the heat sealing cutting device is equipped with a first transition roller… the first transition roller is connected to aservo motor for transmission…”
The main difference between the accused infringing product and the patented technical solution is that it does not use a servo motor but instead uses a Hall motor.
The court held that:Servo motors and Hall motors belong to different types, the former can precisely control speed and angle, achieving intermittent precise transmission; the latter does not have this function, and the twodo not constitute “the same technical feature”.
Therefore, the accused infringing product does not fall within the protection scope of dependent claim 4, which cites claim 1, anddoes not constitute infringement.
Problem Analysis: Overly Specific Technical Features Missed Opportunities for Higher-Level Generalization
In this case, “servo motor” was merely a specific implementation provided by the technical staff during product development and not the core invention of the patent.The patent agent did not delve into its principles during patent drafting, merely providing a literal description or “writing based on the image”. If reasonable higher-level generalization (such as abstracting “servo motor” to “power system,” “driving device,” or “motor with controllable speed”) had been applied, the scope of protection could have been expanded, increasing the difficulty for competitors to circumvent it.
However, directly limiting the claim to “servo motor” effectively pointed out a simple path for competitors to bypass protection—merely replacing the type of motor while keeping all other structures identical successfully avoids infringement.
Similar issues are frequently seen in patent drafting: some patents include specific components or parameters such as “screws,” “stainless steel material,” or “PLC controllers” in independent claims, which may seem clear but actually artificially narrow the scope of protection, akin to “making clothes for competitors.”
Case Insights: Claim Drafting Must Balance “Authorization” and “Generalization” to Avoid “Technical Details Limiting Protection Scope”
When drafting patents, it is essential to review the patent from the perspective of competitors, considering how they might design around it.During patent drafting, appropriate higher-level generalizations or omissions of non-essential features should be adopted to ensure that competitors’ implementations still fall within the patent protection scope.During the patent examination process,when arguing with examiners, it is necessary to understand the bottom line of the patent protection scope, and if it has retreated to a protection scope that competitors can easily bypass, even if the patent is authorized, its power is no different from that of a “paper tiger.”
The value of a patent lies in “exchanging minimal disclosure for maximum protection,” and the precise generalization of claims is the core to achieving this goal.If the possibility of competitors designing around is not considered, the protection scope becomes meaningless, ultimately leading to “winning authorization but losing the market.”.
– End –
Recommended Reading:Patent declared invalid for plagiarizing original unit technologyUnilever’s laundry capsule patent faces another invalidation challengeWhy can inventors request profit sharing?How to “dynamically track” competitors and layout “encirclement” patentsThe perfect integration of business models and patents
About Us
