How to understand patent claims

Understanding utility patent claims

The claims are often the least understood portion of a utility patent, and yet they matter the most. Attempting to understanding utility patent claims can feel like learning a foreign language. There is a lot of funky claim language like “comprising,” “said” and “wherein,” not to mention the hierarchy of independent and dependent claims. I hope this short guide will provide some clarity and a helpful framework for understanding utility patent claims.

Want strong patent claims that will actually block competitors? Contact Vic at or call (949) 223-9623 to see how we can help draft your patent claims. 

Where are the patent claims located?

The patent claims are located towards the end of the written specification. They begin right after the section entitled Detailed Description of Preferred Embodiments. Claims are numbered, so Claim 1 will always be independent.

What is an independent claim?

An independent claim contains a preamble that does not recite another claim number. Claim 1 in a utility patent will always be independent. The following is a diagram of a claim set where Claim 1 is independent and Claims 2 to 4 are dependent:

Sample claim set

For example, suppose the claims after Claim 1 look like the following:

2. The device of claim 1, further comprising. . .

3. The device of claim 2, further comprising . . .

In the above example, claim 2 depends upon claim 1. Claim 2 is dependent. Claim 3 depends upon Claim 2 and adds further elements.

Notice how Claim 4 depends directly on Claim 1. That means whatever is recited in Claim 4 would be tacked onto the limitations of Claim 1. Claim 4 would not include any of the features recited in Claims 2 or 3.

If there were a new claim 5 that did not depend on any other claims, Claim 5 would be a second independent claim that would start a second claim set.

What does an independent claim cover?

To determine the scope of coverage of an independent claim, pay attention to each paragraph after the preamble that starts with “A” or “An” and ends with “comprising:” and a hard paragraph break. Everything after the colon matters.

In order to infringe a patent, a product must infringe at least one independent claim. To infringe an independent claim, the product must contain at least each and every element of the independent claim. Having more than what is claimed does not avoid infringement. Infringement is avoided if the product is missing a claim element. If the product omits at least one claim feature, there is no literal infringement. However, there still might be infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (DOE). So, it’s important to explore whether the product has the equivalent of a missing claim element.

Why claiming less is more

Suppose a utility patent has two independent claims. The first independent claim recites a product having two features, AB. The second independent claim recites a product having three features, ABC. Question: Which independent claim is broader?

Answer: The first independent claim because it requires that a product have only two features, AB, to infringe. The second independent, which recites an additional third feature, is narrower in scope because an accused product must also include feature C in order to infringe. If a competitor were selling a product with only features AB, the product would infringe the first independent claim, but not the second.

It may seem counterintuitive, but having an independent claim that “covers” a whole bunch of features (e.g., let’s say 8) might actually be quite narrow in scope. A competitor could design a product that includes only 7 of the 8 claim elements and thereby avoid infringing that independent claim.

What is a dependent claim?

A dependent claim hangs from an independent claim and recites further features or limitations. In other words, a dependent claim gets more specific and, thus, narrower in scope. Secondary features are typically written into dependent claims, whereas the independent claim usually recites a combination of primary features.

A basic logic of patent infringement is that if a product does not infringe an independent claim, then the product automatically would not infringe any claims dependent upon that particular independent claim. So if it is determined that a product does not infringe an independent claim, then do not bother analyzing the dependent claims in that claim set.

Why bother having dependent claims?

An astute reader may ask, “What is the point of dependent claims if they cannot be infringed once you knock the independent claim?” It’s a good question. One important purpose of dependent claims is that they provide backup in case the validity of the independent claim is attacked.

In the above example, suppose the prior art already shows a product with features AB.

What is a claim set?

A claim set consists of a single independent claim and all the dependent claims that depend upon that particular independent claim. To illustrate, there are two claim sets in the following example:

  1. An apparatus, comprising …
  2. The apparatus of Claim 1, further comprising . . .
  3. The apparatus of Claim 2, wherein . . .
  4. An apparatus of Claim 1, comprising . . .
  5. An apparatus, comprising . . .
  6. The apparatus of Claim 5, wherein . . .

In the above example, Claims 1 and 5 are independent.  Also, notice how dependent Claim 3 depends upon dependent Claim 2, which means that the scope of Claim 3 includes everything recited in Claims 3, 2 and 1.

In contrast, dependent Claim 4 depends directly upon independent Claim 1. So the scope of Claim 4 contains everything in Claims 4 and 1 (but not Claims 2 or 3).

Since Claim 5 is independent, Claim 5 is the beginning of a second claim set that includes dependent Claim 6.

Why have more than one claim set?

Let’s take another look at our claim tree where Claim 5 starts a second claim set:

Multiple claim sets: Claims 1 and 5 are independent

Notice how independent Claim 5 has a different scope than that of independent Claim 1. Suppose a competitor made a product that contained only features B and C. Such a product would not infringe Claim 1 or any of its dependent claims. Therefore, the value of additional claim sets is that you get to start with an independent claim with a different combination of features.

Since the USPTO filing fee for a utility nonprovisional application lets you have up to 3 independent claims and 20 total claims, we typically try to draft utility applications with three claim sets. Since we’re paying the USPTO, we might as well get our money’s worth.

How do patent examiners review claims?

In each claim set, patent examiners start with the independent claim by looking for each claim element in the prior art. If the examiner can find all the elements in the independent claim, the examiner will reject the independent and move onto the dependent claims.

Need help with your patent claims?

Need help filing a utility patent application or reviewing someone’s else patent? Are you concerned about infringement or whether your idea is patentable? Email registered patent attorney Vic Lin anytime at or call (949) 223-9623.

If you’ve found this post helpful, you might enjoy reading our list of best IP resources.

Want to learn more?

Sign up for a free email course on the patent process.

How useful was this post? (Did you find the information you needed?)

Click on a star to rate it!

Thank you for rating my post!

We want to do better.

Could you tell us what was missing in our post?

Frenda Williams
Frenda Williams
I have had the pleasure of working with Vic and his team at Innovation Capital Law Group on Trademark creation and contracts. As a solo and non-tech founder, the assistance, guidance and recommendations from Vic and his team have been INVALUABLE. And, with the knowledge that I have a Solid, well versed and caring legal team I can turn to, I have the confidence I need to navigate the intricacies of the tech industry as a solo founder. With that being said, If you’re a startup and you’re looking for a legal team that speaks your language, knows the industry and makes you feel like family…. Innovation Capital Law Group is a Perfect fit for you, your company and your team. Five out of Five Stars… don’t let their brilliance blind you 😁
Shiwei Liu
Shiwei Liu
Excellent service and quick response. Lots of informative documents on its website.
Chang Chien Michael
Chang Chien Michael
I have worked with iCap for more than 7 years. I am very glad with his professional knowledge that 7 utility patents were granted by USPTO. Vic and his team are very efficient and knowledgeable. Every time he can transcribe my design idea perfectly in two weeks and file it with no rejection from USPTO. The other service including the granted patent following up is always in time to remind me to take actions. That is why I still stick on iCap as my first priority when I want to file a US patent.
Mats Johansson
Mats Johansson
We have been happy client for 10+ years. Awesome Patent Law Firm!
Hanson Chang
Hanson Chang
Glad to write a review for Innovation Capital Law Group. We previously worked with a big law firm (2200 employees) on our patents, and decided to shift over to Innovation Capital. It was a great decision, this team got our patents done faster, more effectively, at a lower cost, and with broader claims. Win all around
Genevieve Springer
Genevieve Springer
Clear, discernible tools and strategies couched within a business conceived from a genuine interest in doing right by founders.
InPlay Inc
InPlay Inc
Vic and his team have been providing us with the best patent application experiences we could ever have in our entire career life! Their professionalism and technical knowledge have really saved us a lot of communication effort and time on the applications. Definitely highly recommend if anyone is looking for help with IP protection for their business.
Meg Crowley
Meg Crowley
After working with Vic and his team at Innovation Capital Law Group, our organization is confident our trademarks were solid and protected. Thank you team.
Andy Dong
Andy Dong
I have been using Innovation Capital Law Group for a few years and continue to use them. They have provided an excellent services on our legal issues including intellectual properties and patents . They are very responsive, easy to work with and very competent . I highly recommend them.

Follow us

Copyright © Vic Lin 2023