IP Intelligence › Real Scenarios › The claim that matched the product
Real-life scenario · fictionalised
The claim that matched the product
A company receives an examination report with a strong inventive step objection. The quickest way to answer it is to amend claim 1 to recite the exact configuration of the product they sell: a specific sensor type, a specific sampling rate, a specific housing arrangement. They do. The patent is granted eleven months later and announced in a press release. Two years after that, a competitor launches a product with a different sensor type at the same price.
What is the company able to do?
Nothing, and the patent explains why
Infringement requires every feature of a claim to be present. The competitor's product does not use the recited sensor type, so claim 1 is not met. The dependent claims are narrower still.
Worse, the granted patent is public. It told the competitor precisely which feature to change - and the prosecution history explains why that feature was said to be essential.
What the alternative looked like
The objection could have been answered by amending to the narrowest limitation that restored inventive step, which in this case was the timing relationship between sampling and actuation, not the sensor type. That limitation was disclosed in the specification. It would have been harder to argue, would have taken longer, and would have covered the competitor's product.
The amendment chosen was the fastest route to a certificate, and the certificate is all it produced.
What should have happened
- Asked what a competitor would have to change to escape the amended claim, before filing the amendment.
- Amended to the narrowest limitation that answered the objection, not to the product.
- Kept at least one claim directed to the underlying principle if it could be defended.
- Judged the outcome by what competitors must now avoid, not by whether a certificate arrived.
A patent granted quickly to claims that describe what you already sell is mostly a map for the people you were trying to stop.
This scenario is a composite teaching example written by Ragulika IP. It does not describe any real client, application or matter, and any resemblance to a specific case is coincidental.
Sources & further reading
- The Patents Act, 1970 (consolidated to 1 August 2024) — Official IP India text
Related
The patent that only covers what you already sell
There is a version of every application that will be granted: the one narrowed to precisely what you already sell. It is also the version competitors do not need to …
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…
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 …
Holding an examination report?
A reply is an argument, not a form. What you concede now shapes what your patent is worth later.
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.
Last reviewed by Ragulika IP on 2026-08-23. Indian patent law and Patent Office practice change; check the position before you rely on it.