You just received your issued patent. The attorney sends congratulations. You frame it and hang it in the conference room. Six months later, a competitor launches a product that does exactly what yours does—and your patent attorney tells you there’s nothing you can do about it.

How did this happen? Your patent uses boilerplate claims that sound impressive but don’t actually protect your specific invention. You paid $15,000-$20,000 for a legal document that doesn’t stop competitors from doing anything.

Let’s talk about why generic patent claims are a liability for your IP strategy—and what custom-tailored claims actually look like.

The Problem: Template Claims That Fit Everything (And Nothing)

What Boilerplate Claims Look Like

Here’s a real example of generic claim language I’ve seen (details changed):

The Problem: This describes almost every computer system ever made. It’s so vague that it might not even cover what your product actually does, competitors can easily design around it, and an examiner can find a dozen prior art references. If challenged, it would likely be invalidated (assuming it got past the examiner).

Why Attorneys Use Boilerplate Language

Legitimate reasons:

• Certain phrases have established legal meanings
• Some standard language is necessary for clarity
• Consistency across patent portfolios matters

Bad reasons:

• It’s faster to copy-paste than to think
• Junior attorneys rely on templates they don’t fully understand (they are under the gun to make billable hours)
• Online filing services use algorithm-generated claims
• High-volume practices prioritize speed over quality
• The attorney doesn’t actually understand your technology

Why Generic Claims Cost You Money

Scenario 1: The Design-Around

Your patent claims “a widget with feature A and feature B.”

Your competitor launches a product with feature A, feature C, and feature D. It does the same thing yours does—arguably better—but technically doesn’t infringe because it doesn’t have “feature B.”

Scenario 2: The Prior Art Rejection

Your boilerplate claims are so broad and generic that the patent examiner finds prior art you never would have imagined was relevant.

“Your claim reads on a 1987 Japanese patent for an industrial controller.”

Now you’re spending $3,000-$5,000 per office action trying to narrow claims that were far too broad to begin with. You end up with a patent so narrow it’s useless—or you abandon the application entirely.

Scenario 3: The Invalidation

You try to enforce your patent against a competitor. They hire a law firm that finds prior art your examiner missed. Because your claims were so generic, they’re easily invalidated.

What Custom Patent Claims Actually Look Like

The Difference: Specificity That Matters

Let’s take a hypothetical example. Suppose you’ve invented a new type of ground-fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) that can work in both AC and DC modes.

See the difference? The custom claims:

• Describe what actually makes your invention unique
• Cover the specific technical solution you developed
• Are narrow enough to be patentable but broad enough to be valuable
• Make it harder for competitors to design around

How to Know If Your Claims Are Boilerplate

Warning Signs

1. Your Attorney Didn’t Ask Many Questions

If your attorney didn’t spend significant time understanding what makes your invention different from competitors, the specific technical problem you’re solving, how someone might try to copy you without literally copying, and your business model and market position—then your claims are probably generic.

2. The Claims Could Describe Multiple Products

Read your claims. Do they describe:

• Only your specific invention? ✓ Good
• Your entire product category? Probably too broad
• Almost anything in your industry? Definitely too generic

3. You Can’t Explain What They Mean

If you read your claims and have no idea what they’re actually protecting, that’s a red flag. Good claims should be technical but understandable to someone skilled in your field.

4. The Application Was Filed Suspiciously Fast

Quality patent applications take time: 20-40 hours for a decent provisional, 40-80 hours for a good non-provisional, and more for complex technologies. If your attorney filed your application in a week, they probably used templates.

5. Your First Response Is a Notice of Allowance

If your first substantive response from the Patent Office is instant approval, your claims may have been too narrow to begin with.

What Custom Patent Claims Require

1. Deep Technical Understanding

Your attorney needs to understand how your technology actually works (not just a surface description), the state of the art in your field, and what’s been done before and why your approach is different.

This requires an attorney with a technical background relevant to your invention. For electrical devices, you want an electrical engineer. For software, a computer science background helps. For mechanical devices, an understanding of physics is helpful.

2. Competitive Intelligence

Your claims should anticipate how competitors might try to copy you:

• What variations could achieve the same result?
• What features are essential vs. optional?
• Where are you vulnerable?

This requires an attorney who asks about your market, your competitors, and your business strategy—not just your technology.

3. Strategic Claim Drafting

Good claim sets include:

• Independent claims: Broad enough to be valuable
• Dependent claims: Narrow fallback positions
• Method claims: Protecting how it’s used
• System claims: Protecting the device itself
• Multiple angles: Covering different aspects of the invention

This requires experience and strategic thinking, not just template-filling.

4. Prior Art Awareness

Your attorney should draft claims with an eye toward what prior art exists, how to position claims to avoid obvious rejections, and what claim language has worked in similar technologies.

This requires doing the homework before drafting, not after the examiner rejects everything.

Questions to Ask Your Patent Attorney

Before hiring someone to draft your patent application, ask:

“What’s your technical background?”

Look for: Degree and experience relevant to your technology.

“How do you approach claim drafting?”

“Can you show me an example of claims you’ve drafted in a similar technology?”

Look for: Specific, detailed claims that describe real inventions (not generic templates).

“What happens if (or rather when) we get an office action?”

The Cost-Benefit Reality

Approach	Upfront Cost	Risk of Worthless Patent	Expected Value
Template Approach	$8,000-$12,000	70%+	$2,400-$3,600
Custom Strategy	$12,000-$18,000	20-30%	$8,400-$14,400

When Generic Claims Might Be Okay

There are limited situations where a more template-based approach works:

• You just need a patent for investor optics (not recommended, but it happens)
• You’re filing many similar patents in a well-understood field
• Your invention is truly simple and straightforward
• You have a follow-on patent strategy and this is just the first filing

But for most companies—especially those in the $10M-$100M range with limited patent budgets—every patent needs to count.

The Bottom Line

A patent is only as good as its claims. Generic, boilerplate language might get you an issued patent—but it won’t stop competitors, survive challenges, or provide real business value.

Custom-tailored claims require:

• An attorney with relevant technical expertise
• Time invested in understanding your technology and market
• Strategic thinking about how competitors might design around you
• Proper prior art analysis before drafting

Yes, this costs more upfront. But spending $15,000 on a patent that actually protects your invention is infinitely better than spending $12,000 on a worthless piece of paper.