A patent attorney is reviewing a software patent application that includes 15 unique algorithms. The claims must be drafted so that each algorithm is covered by exactly one independent claim, and each independent claim must be supported by at least 3 distinct algorithms. What is the maximum number of independent claims the attorney can draft under these constraints?

Wed, 06 May 2026 12:08:44 +0000

**What’s Driving Interest in Software Patent Claims for 15 Unique Algorithms?**
In the evolving landscape of software innovation, the review of complex algorithm portfolios by patent attorneys reflects a growing focus on intellectual property protection in emerging technologies. With 15 distinct algorithms under examination, the structure and precision of claim drafting have become central to safeguarding novel functionality. This attention stems from rising investment in AI, automation, and data processing systems—technologies where algorithmic uniqueness drives market advantage. As developers seek legal clarity on patent eligibility, clear, distinct claims are increasingly seen as essential to validating scope and defensibility. Why Is a Patent Attorney Focused on Independent Claims for These Algorithms?
The precise architecture of independent claims is fundamental in patent law. Under U.S. standards, each independent claim must cover a sufficiently distinct invention, supported by at least three independent algorithmic foundations. This requirement ensures legal robustness and avoids overbroad coverage. With 15 algorithms to protect, a patent attorney’s strategy often revolves around grouping related innovations into independent claims that are both self-contained and mutually reinforcing. This approach not only strengthens the patent application but also supports future licensing, enforcement, and litigation readiness. How Patent Attorneys Structure Claims with 15 Algorithms and 3-Algorithm Backing
To meet legal and practical goals, a patent attorney reviewing 15 unique algorithms typically organizes them into independent claims, each anchored by a core set of three algorithms. With 15 algorithms total, this means structuring at most 5 independent claims—each covering 3 distinct algorithms. Duplicating algorithm groupings across claims would risk redundancy or invalidation, while leaving algorithms ungrouped underm