Dependent claim

The table summarizes how the US statute and the EPC describe the three forms. Section 112(c) says a claim may be written in independent or, if the nature of the case admits, in dependent or multiple dependent form¹.

• Test for a proper dependent claim. The MPEP says it must include every limitation of the claim from which it depends and specify a further limitation. If claim 1 recites elements A, B, C and D, a claim that omits D or replaces it with E is not a proper dependent claim⁵.
• Different categories. The MPEP says that independent and dependent claims being in different statutory classes does not in itself make the dependent claim improper. For example, a claim for the method of making the product of claim 1 in a particular manner can be a proper dependent claim⁵.
• Examination. A dependent claim is directed to a combination including everything in the base claim and what the dependent claim recites. That combination is compared with the prior art as if it were presented as one independent claim⁵.
• Validity. Each claim of a patent is presumed valid independently of the validity of other claims, and dependent or multiple dependent claims are presumed valid even though dependent upon an invalid claim. The burden of establishing invalidity rests on the party asserting it (35 U.S.C. 282(a))⁶.
• Multiple dependent claim wording. Alternative reference, for example "claims 3 or 4", is acceptable. Cumulative reference, for example "claims 3 and 4", is not permitted. A multiple dependent claim may refer in the alternative to only one set of claims and may not serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent claim, directly or indirectly⁵.
• Fee counting. For fee calculation, a multiple dependent claim counts as the number of claims to which direct reference is made, and a claim depending from it counts as the number referenced in that multiple dependent claim. An application filed with or amended to include multiple dependent claims must pay the fee in 37 CFR 1.16(j)⁴.

As of 28 October 2026, the USPTO fee schedule (effective January 19, 2025, last revised August 14, 2026) lists the multiple dependent claim fee at $925, or $370 for a small entity and $185 for a micro entity. It also lists $600 for each independent claim in excess of three and $200 for each claim in excess of 20, with reduced amounts for small and micro entities⁷. Fees change, so check the current schedule before filing. See Patent costs.

• Particular embodiments. Any claim stating the essential features of an invention may be followed by one or more claims concerning particular embodiments of that invention (Rule 43(3))³. The Guidelines say such a claim must include all the features of at least one independent claim².
• Grouping. All dependent claims referring back to a single previous claim, and all dependent claims referring back to several previous claims, are to be grouped together to the extent and in the most appropriate way possible (Rule 43(4))³.
• A reference does not always make a claim dependent. The Guidelines say a claim containing a reference to another claim is not necessarily a dependent claim as defined in Rule 43(4). An example is a claim to "Apparatus for carrying out the process of claim 1", which refers to a claim of a different category and is treated as independent, so the applicant must set out the essential features of the apparatus⁸.
• Claims fees. An application with more than fifteen claims incurs claims fees for the sixteenth and each subsequent claim, as laid down in the Rules relating to Fees. They are due within one month of filing the first set of claims. If they are not paid in time, they may still be paid within one month of a communication concerning the failure to observe the time limit. A claim for which the fee is not paid in due time is deemed abandoned (Rule 45(2) and (3))⁹. This page does not state the amounts; see the EPO fee schedule.

In its en banc opinion in Phillips, the Federal Circuit said that the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim¹⁰. See Claim construction.

See Markush claim for claims that list alternatives within a single claim.

The Federal Circuit reasoned in the same way when it construed a term in the patent in suit¹⁰.

In construing the term "baffles", the court noted that dependent claim 2 recited a specific limitation on the baffles, which made it likely that the patentee did not contemplate that the term already contained that limitation10.