What is functional
claims?
A Functional claim will be written in what is called means-plus-function
form. In patent law, claim defines the scope of your monopoly patent right over
the market. Therefore, an inventor would want the claim to cover as wide as
possible to protect his innovations from competition and patent infringements.
There are two ways to structure a claim: functional limits
and structural limits. Like the words suggest, functional limits would describe
the function of the patented technology, whereas structural limits would go
into the details of the construction of the patented technology.
In proper functional claims, we can expect to see the following
phrases:
- - Means
- - Means for
- - Configured to
Why draft functional
claims?
Apparently, drafting a function claim gives you broader
scope to describe your patents. To give you an example, it’s easier to protect
your design for the first cellphone in the market by claiming ownership over “a
device that’s mean for remote, wireless communication over a radio link” than “a
device that’s made of a plastic or metal rectangular piece with a screen,
speakers and buttons.”
When to use
functional claims?
It’s more reasonable to utilize function claims for electrical
and electronic devices since the physical structure can be rather hard to
explain in a clear manner. There might be too many parts and configurations
that inventor has to cover in order to achieve his goal. On the contrary, using
a function claim can characterize the innovation using significantly fewer
claims.
This was a really informative blog post! I hadn't realized there was a functional claim portion of a patent. However, I'm not sure I really like the idea of functional claim. If you take the chair example we made in class, what if someone patented a device for which you can sit on? Then no one could make anything that's purpose was to be sat upon - they wouldn't be able to market it as a chair. In that way, we would only have one chair maker! But I guess there most be other rules put in place so that things like this doesn't happen. Rules that say what can be patented and what cannot. I remember someone asking in class about a seat belt and how patenting such a function could actually cause greater harm than good.
ReplyDeleteFor me, at first it doesn't make much sense either that we can use functional claims in patent protection. But I do think in certain industries and for certain products, utilizing functional claims would be more reasonable. Drawing the boundary of when to use it and when it is not appropriate to use it, unfortunately, is really hard and vague.
DeleteThank you for the truly informative blog post. I think functional claims make it easier for patent trolls to exist. Since they allow for a broader scope in describing patented technology more companies can claim patent infringement since their patent might be too generic or too encompassing of other more specific technologies.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely. It's good for the inventors when they can cover a broader scope for their patents, but it's certainly bad for encouraging innovations. I feel it's really conflicting that if I were an inventor, I would love to have functional claims. But as a consumer, I want more new and advanced technologies.
DeleteGreat, clear post! It makes sense that functionality of a product is the idea that people are trying to protect with patents. It definitely covers more grounds than describing the form in which the object is in. At the same time, I think there is a topic to explore regarding a function we are trying to achieve and there being very different means (with different advantages and disadvantages) to reach the function.
ReplyDelete