> So if you have a widget and it matches claim 1-8 but does not match claim 9, it does not match.
This is not correct. If you infringe claim 1 then you infringe claim 1. Whether or not you also infringe claim 9 doesn't matter.
Assuming Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1, claim 9 includes all the limitations of claim 1. So claim 1 is A+B+C.... Claim 9 is 1 + D = A+B+C+D. So if you infringe 9 because you have A+B+C+D then you also, by definition, infringe claim 1 because you have A+B+C.
Also, you can write a claim that has ORs applied. But the drafter has to be really careful with how it is done and it is not the norm.
I may have explained it incorrectly, I'm a bit rusty.
I did a lot of work in pharmaceutical route development, where some patent does "ABCD123" and we'd do "ABCD456". My point is more that, patents are usually laid out like:
1. A method for crystallization of a pharmaceutical in an organic solvent with some counterion.
2. (1), where the solvent is ethanol, or methanol
3. (1), where the counterion is Cl, SO4, or NO3
4. (1), where the pharmaceutical is a COX2 inhibitor
So that patent doesn't allow you to claim any crystallization route with ethanol. If I crystalize from ethanol but use mesylate as the counterion, I'm not infringing.
Considering the doctrine of claim differentiation, your hypothetical could still be infringing Claim 1. You’d have to consider the spec, among other things, to persuasively argue one way or the other.
This is not correct. If you infringe claim 1 then you infringe claim 1. Whether or not you also infringe claim 9 doesn't matter.
Assuming Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1, claim 9 includes all the limitations of claim 1. So claim 1 is A+B+C.... Claim 9 is 1 + D = A+B+C+D. So if you infringe 9 because you have A+B+C+D then you also, by definition, infringe claim 1 because you have A+B+C.
Also, you can write a claim that has ORs applied. But the drafter has to be really careful with how it is done and it is not the norm.