.
Strong vs. Weak Features.
.
.
Strong vs. Weak
          Patents          
We will ensure you know the strength profile of your patent, no matter who prepares it.
.
.
Not all patents are equally protective. Most business and individual inventors never know the strength profile of their patent, but are simply gleeful to have their patent.
.
Often and not until a strong patent is needed does an inventor discover their patent is strong and protective or is minimally protective or even worthless due to claim weaknesses or non-claimed omissions. 
.
In patenting there is little value in second best. If a patent does not fully protect key elements of an invention, the important elements of a patent are often not protected at all and the patent becomes more of a teaching document and showing non-infringing uses.
.
An inventor must know the strength profile of their patent to know the risks of investing time, money, and other resources. If a patent is weak, then to justify investments another patent may need to be filed or attempts made to license or purchase other patents and their associated rights to strengthen a market position. 
.
Strong vs. Weak Features
.
.
.
Primary Patent Strengtheners
.
1. More Independent Claims
The single most important element to strengthen a patent is to increase the number of independent claims. This occurs because:
Invention Value – It shows the inventor values the invention and is more likely to defend the granted rights.
Difficult To Invalidate – Each independent claim costs $5,000 – $20,000 to attempt to invalidate.
Freedom Of Action – The independent claim sets the scope of rights and protections, so the more independent claims provide greater rights, protections, and greater market potential and market freedom of movement.
.
.
2. Fewer Words Per Claims
Arguably as important as the number of independent claims is the quality of the independent claim. The fewer the words in any claim the stronger the claim. Consider that each word constricts, narrows, or limits the scope of the claim.
Example – “A ball” includes all balls, but “a glowing ball” (as in the dark under moonlight) has a vastly narrower scope from just one word.
.
.
3. Fewer Adjectives Per Claim
One word can change a claim from protective to non-protective, or provide coverage for all invention variations or just one invention configuration.
Example – Use the word “above” and only that variation is protected. Use the word “adjacent” and all positioning variation are protected.
.
.
4. Invention Concept Claims
More important than the invention is the inventive concept. Inventions may have to vary with improved technology, change in market interest, cost of manufacturing, and more. If a patent only protects the invention as it is configured at the time of patent application filing, the patent has little long term value. In fact the value of the patent may be worthless before it is even granted.
Example – Capturing odors using dendrimers, but then a long chain polymers may do the same. The concept is minimizing odors by molecular encapsulation, not by the use of dendrimers.
.
.
5. More Diversified Claims
Diversification is a wise strategy in almost anything. The same is true for patents.Strong vs. Weak Features
Apparatus Claim – If a patent only uses an apparatus claim (which is often the case), then only the function of the apparatus is protected against the manufacture of the item. However, once made or even assembled from different sources, the use is not protected.
Method Claim – Provides protection against the use of the item. 
Composition Claim – This is the third claim type allowed by statute. All claims are either an apparatus, method, or composition claim. This claim provides specific chemical molecular and chemical compositions protections.
.
The more of these claim types and their more specific variations, the more protection is provided by the patent..
.
.
.
Next Patent Strengtheners
.
6. Product Relevant Claims
An invention may be that of a material, a component, a chemistry, a design, etc. That is nice and may be useful, but attaching such a sub-element to a full product adds value to the sub-element invention.
Example – A ball with a hetergeneous (non-uniform) surface allows for the capture and transfer of substances. Attaching that ball invention to a pen brings context and value.
Strong vs. Weak Features
.
.
7 . More Total Claims
The more total independent claims the better. The more dependent claims referring to those independent claims is also better. A patent application can have three independent claims and 20 total claims for the same filing fee. A such, there should not be a patent filed with less than 3 independent claims and 20 total claims.
Example – Each independent claim is like a light source, and each ray of light is like an additional dependent claim.
Strong vs. Weak Features
.
.
8. Invention Specific Claims
It was stated that the more type of claims the better. The more situation specific claims is also better, for example:
Competitor Claims – If there is one or two major specific competitor technologies, then consider claims that address those specific competitors, specific technologies, or other specific claims.
Product Claims – If the invention is a component or a product, consider claims that attach the invention to a larger market valued product.
Maximum Royalty Claim – Somewhat of a restatement of a product claim, but with the purpose of enhancing patent license or sale value by attaching a component or product to a higher valued product. For instance, take an innovative rubber embedded with controlled release oils that never collect deposits and clear water more cleanly. This could be left unattached as simply an interesting material in cheap squeegee or associated with a windshield wiper that improves the vehicle value and safety.
Other – These claims are fundamentally an apparatus, method, or composition claim, but are specifically situationally tailored or directed towards coverage for more market, legal, competitive, etc. value.
.
.
9. More Description Words
There are four primary components to most patents, and each has different value based upon the patent (utility, design, plant, business, app/code, international application, provisional application, etc.).
Abstract – Less than 150 words. The number of words are set. There is less value from the abstract wth the U.S. patent, but of great significance to the international application (it is what will be translated into English).
Drawings – The more drawings the better (with rare exception). Usually the more detailed drawings the better. This is most important to design and plant patents where they largely form the basis of claim support. There is essentially no penalty for providing more and more detail.
Description – The more words in the description the better, while also avoiding limiting adjectives or covering all adjectives. The more words provides more antecedent potential to support each claim. The more words means more disclosure of all invention aspects that creates “prior art” to bar others from patenting near your invention. The more words may mean adding sections specifically to provided understanding to less technical audiences such as: executives, marketers and sales people, judges and juries, plain language to competitors, etc. This is passive patent protection.
Claims – The fewer words the better and the more claims the better.
.
.
10. More and Better Drawings
Drawings submitted with the original filing are considered part of the description of the invention (instead of just clarifying) and an antecedent to the claims. Almost without exception, the more drawings and the more detailed the drawings, the better.
Drawings – Design patents nearly exclusively form the scope and strength of granted rights and protections from drawings. Little if any description is allowed, and only one claim with universal language is allowed. More and more detailed drawings the better.
Drawings and Description – In this order, Plant Patents use drawings extensively to detail the characteristics of the plant, accompanied by a description of the scientific characteristics of the plant. More and more detailed drawings is better.
Description then Drawings – The Utility patent does not require drawings as an obligation by law. However, they are so useful that some form of drawing is required for clarification of the description as a course of tradition and necessity. The more and more detailed the drawings the better. Simply ensure the drawings are not limiting, like an adjective might be.
.
.
.
Additional Deterrence And Clout
.
11. Quality Of Prior Art Citation
Every non-inventor patent reader will review a patent for a non-infringing use of the invention. Those determined to mimic an invention, even if it means infringing the patent, want to know how strong the patent is or how much risk there is to them if they do infringe the patent. A patent that boldly reviews all relevant prior art and boldly places their invention and patent rights within and around preexisting patent rights accomplishes three empowering results:
Direct Peer Review – This is a type of peer review process where the patent allows itself to be challenged during the patenting process by the most likely patents that would be used to invalidate it.
Validated Rights – By being granted rights after a direct challenge during the patenting process the patent emerges strengthen in the eyes of the law and courts, competitors, executives and marketers, potential licensees and buyers, and others.
Risky to Infringe or Challenge Validity – This direct peer review of the most relevant prior art in combination with other strengthening elements makes it much more risky to infringe or challenge validity.

.

.
12. Number of Prior Art Citations
Similar to the argument of the “Quality Of Prior Art Citations” is the quantity of prior art citations. A competitor that seeks to invalidate a patent will seek any form of prior art to show the patent is not novel or was obvious and therefore not valid. By also disclosing more or all possible relevant patent, and not just the more relevant patents, then other benefits emerge:
Indirect Peer Review – the granted rights are also strengthened by showing others that the patenting process already considered essentially all possibilities of prior art.
Risky to Infringe or Challenge Validity – This direct peer review of the most relevant prior art in combination with other strengthening elements makes it much more risky to infringe or challenge validity.
.
.
Undoubtedly, the more of the above elements the stronger the patent.
Strong vs. Weak Features
.
.
Fortress PATENTS / IP understand patents and the elements that strengthen or weaken patents. Fortress PATENTS / IP will assist business and individual inventors to dial in the greatest patent strength profile they desire or can obtain within their invention landscape.
.