IP Intelligence
Patent Criticalities
The things that quietly decide whether an invention can be protected - explained before they cost you anything.
Showing 13 of 56.
Claim 1 describes your product instead of your invention
Claim 1 is the patent. If it recites the specific product you happened to build - your materials, your dimensions, your architecture - then a competitor only has to …
Your specification does not support your claim
You can only claim what you described. When an examiner cites prior art and the obvious answer is to add a limitation you never wrote down, there is nothing to amend…
The reply that quietly gave the patent away
A first examination report is an opening position, not a rejection. The two ways applicants lose value here are missing the date, and buying a grant by conceding mor…
Software claimed as software
You cannot patent a computer programme per se. You can, on current Indian authority, patent an invention that happens to be implemented in software if it delivers a …
Your claim is broader than your invention
Breadth is not free. Every extra millimetre of claim scope pulls in more prior art and demands more disclosure to support it. A claim that reaches beyond what you ac…
There is nowhere to retreat to
Claim 1 will often not survive examination. What decides whether you still have a patent worth having is whether the drafter built a ladder of narrower, meaningful p…
The description is thinner than the claim needs
A patent is a trade: a monopoly for a teaching. If the teaching would not let a competent person in your field reproduce the invention across the width of the claim,…
Nobody can tell exactly what the claim covers
A claim has to define a boundary that other people can find. Words like substantially, approximately, optimal, efficient and high-strength push that boundary into fo…
The same thing has three different names
It matters more than it seems. If the description calls something a housing, a casing and an enclosure, an examiner has to decide whether those are one thing or thre…
The specification never says what problem this solves
Inventive step is argued as a story: this was the problem, this is what the field taught, this is why our solution was not obvious. If the specification never states…
The case turns on what one word means
Before anyone asks whether a product infringes, the court decides what the claim means. That single decision then governs both infringement and validity - which is w…
Why clarity objections arrive
Clarity objections look minor and are often answered carelessly, by adding limitations to make the point go away. That is the expensive route. A clarity objection is…
Why enablement and support are different objections
Support asks whether the claim is fairly based on what you described. Enablement asks whether a skilled person could actually perform it across the claim's width. Th…
This is the Ragulika IP Educational Criticality - our own editorial prioritisation device, to help you decide what to read first. It is not a legal score, it is not calculated from your facts, and it says nothing about the strength of any particular application.
Keep going.
Every explanation here links to the ones next to it. Follow the thread rather than the menu.
Educational guidance, not legal advice. This material is published by Ragulika IP for general education and information. It is not legal advice, it does not create a professional-client relationship, and it is not a substitute for advice on your own facts. Patentability, infringement, prosecution strategy and every other IP outcome turn on the specific facts and on the law and Patent Office practice as they stand at the time you act. Please take professional advice before making a decision, and read the underlying provision or judgment before relying on any point stated here.