That's not how patents work. Each claim is not a patented thing. A chain of claims forms the patented thing. There's at least 9 dependent claims hanging on that first one.
Right. It’s best to think of the claims in a patent as a set of DAGs (a single patent can contain multiple “inventions”). To infringe, you have to go from a starting node to a connected ending node and implement/match all nodes along the path.
Have to admit I've never heard this in my life. If this is the case, then TIL, thanks!
I will say that my point largely stands, though: the leaf nodes of this particular DAG are places where you will almost inevitably end up if you want to implement robotic farm machinery. Deere averages a couple hundred patents a year, so if you don't step on this specific land mine, another one will get you.
The dependency chain flows upward, not downward. Later claims depend on the earlier ones that they reference ("2. The method of claim 1..."), but the presence of claim 2 does not alter the meaning or enforcability of claim 1.
(I should point out that IANAL, so if there are instances in which this isn't strictly correct, it'd be interesting to learn about them. Downvoting without comment doesn't enlighten anyone.)
