Patent Application Preparation and Filing

The issuance of a patent by the government office is basically done by a patent application record that is an agreement between the inventor and the government office. Correspondingly, a patent application is in many ways like a contract. Preparation of a standard patent application is curious because it sets out in a transparent way, the terms and condition by which the patent owner and others will be bound. These criteria of the patent application make it different from writing a scientific paper. The technical subject matter that is available in the patent application have bear some similarities to a scientific or technical paper, although it does not usually need to rise to the level of a blueprint for making the invention protected by the patent. Public officials of government take a long time to review the patent as examiners and judges and business partners. Therefore it is necessary that a patent application should be drafted with these important audiences in mind. The parts of the patent application typically include the Background, Summary, Detailed Description and Drawings, Claims, and Abstract. The patent agent is unlikely to draft the patent application in this order and should ordinarily draft the claims first

Переклад патентної документації США

Розглядається загальна характеристика патентної документації США; містить вправи на переклад титульної сторінки та повного опису винаходу; складання анотацій та рефератів англійською та українською мовами; зразки патентної документації, інформацію про довідниково-пошуковий апарат, цифрові коди для ідентифікації бібліографічних даних та англо-український патентний словник. Розраховано на студентів спеціальності "Переклад (англійська мова)" і аспірантів технічних спеціальностей.The book presents general characteristic of the USA patent documentation; contains exercises in translation of the title page, detailed description of the invention, drawings and claims; in writing abstracts of the specifications in English and Ukrainian; illustrations of patent documentation; information about a search report; ICIREPAT and INID codes, and an English–Ukrainian patent dictionary. For the students of "Translation and Interpreting" departments and post-graduate students of technical specialties

Brevets : rédaction et interprétation des revendications, validité et contrefaçon

Ce mémoire traite des brevets d'invention. Le premier volet dresse un portrait global de l'institution juridique du brevet, tout en en rappelant sommairement les fondements économique et philosophique. Après une brève présentation des conditions préalables à sa délivrance, nous discutons des composantes matérielles du brevet, soit la description de l’invention et les revendications. Une attention particulière est portée à la rédaction ainsi qu'à l'interprétation des revendications. Nous traitons ainsi de deux types de revendications spécialisées qui se sont développés avec l'usage, respectivement les revendications de type Jepson et Markush, pour ensuite recenser les principes d'interprétation des revendications que les tribunaux ont établis. Le deuxième volet traite de la validité et de la contrefaçon de brevet. Sur la question de la validité, nous abordons les principaux motifs pouvant entraîner l'invalidité du brevet, soit: l’ambiguïté, l'insuffisance de la divulgation, le double brevet, l'absence de nouveauté, l'évidence et l'absence d'utilité. Enfin, sur la question de la contrefaçon, nous examinons les circonstances dans lesquelles les actes commis par les tiers portent atteinte au monopole du titulaire de brevet. Pour ce faire, nous nous attardons à la portée des droits exclusifs qui sont reconnus à ce dernier. Tant en ce qui a trait à la validité qu'à la contrefaçon, nous recourons à des illustrations jurisprudentielles permettant de constater les incidences litigieuses afférentes, d'une part, aux motifs d'invalidité et, d'autre part, aux actes de contrefaçon.This thesis pertains to patent law. The first part of the study is an overview of patents, where both economic and philosophical justifications for this legal regime are shortly addressed. After reviewing the requirements for the grant of a patent, we turn our attention to the main sections of a patent, namely the description of the invention and the claims. We then proceed to a thorough analysis of both the writing and construction of patent claims. More specifically, Jepson and Markush claims command our attention, having emerged as widespread methods for writing patent claims. Moreover, principles of claim construction, as devised by courts in the context of litigation, are also examined. The second part of this study pertains to patent validity and infringement. Regarding validity, we discuss a number of irregularities that may be cause for the invalidity of a patent, namely: ambiguity, insufficiency of the disclosure, double patenting, anticipation, obviousness and lack of utility. Lastly, with respect to infringement, we consider the circumstances from which it may arise, based on the actions of a third party alleged to be in violation of the patentee’s monopoly. This is carried by way of appraising the extent of said patentee's exclusive rights. With respect to both validity and infringement, we discuss case law pertaining, in a first instance, to validity issues and, in a second instance, to infringement matters

Credit card display system

A card-oriented transaction system (10) is provided with the capability of communicating with the card user. Specifically, the system is provided with a user card (11) having a surface region (13) capable of receiving an erasable visual image, a card reader (14) capable of detecting the card and writing on the display surface, and a data processor (16) adapted for providing information to be written on the display surface. In a preferred embodiment, the erasable visual display surface (13) is a plastic film embedding droplets of oil containing reflecting magnetic flakes. The film can be laminated onto the user card and reset by a magnetic field in the plane of the major surface. Writing can be effected by application of a magnetic field perpendicular to the surface.Published versio

NTP v. RIM: The Diverging Law Between System and Method Claim Infringement

[Excerpt] “Almost thirty years after the landmark decision of Decca Ltd. v. United States, the Federal Circuit had an opportunity to reevaluate the extraterritorial limits of U.S. patent law in NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd. After withdrawing its initial opinion (“NTP I”) and issuing a second opinion (“NTP II”), the court held that a system having a component located outside U.S. jurisdiction could be subject to U.S. patent law. The court held as a matter of law, however, that a process in which a step is performed outside U.S. jurisdiction could not be subject to U.S. patent law. In NTP I and NTP II, the infringing system included a component located in Canada. Ironically, that infringing system was the platform on which the non-infringing process operated. The court’s justification for this result was based on the “collective” nature of systems compared to the “individual” nature of processes. This article analyzes the court’s decision and recommends an alternative holding in order to unify “system” and process infringement law. Additionally, this article examines the history of “system” claims to determine whether their current use as “machine” claims is consistent with their historical use. Given its historical context, this article then evaluates whether a preamble including a “system” should limit a claim’s scope under the current law. Finally, this article evaluates the effect of the court’s decision on communications and secondary-use patents.

Patent Clutter

Patent claims are supposed to clearly and succinctly describe the patented invention, and only the patented invention. This Article hypothesizes that a substantial amount of language in patent claims is in fact not about the core invention, which may contribute to well-documented problems with patent claims. I analyze the claims of 40,000 patents and applications, and document the proliferation of “clutter”—language in patent claims that is not about the invention. Although claims are supposed to be exclusively about the invention, clutter appears across industries and makes up approximately 25% of claim language. Patent clutter may contribute several major problems in patent law. Extensive clutter makes patent claims harder to search. Excessive language in patent claims may be the result of over-claiming—when patentees describe potential corollaries they do not possess—thereby making the patent so broad in scope as to be invalid. More generally, it strains the comprehensibility of patents and burdens the resources of patent examiners. After arguing that patent clutter may contribute to these various problems, this Article turns to reforms. Rejections based on prolix, lack of enablement, and lack of written description can be crafted to dispose of the worst offenders, and better algorithms and different litigation rules can allow the patent system to adapt (and even benefit from) the remaining uses of excess language. The Article additionally generates important theoretical insights. Claims are often thought of as entirely synonymous with the invention and all elements of the claim are thought to relate equally strongly to the invention. This Article suggests empirically that these assumptions do not hold in practice, and offers a framework for restructuring conceptions of the relationship between claims and the invention

Claim Re-Construction: The Doctrine of Equivalents in the Post-Markman Era

In the post-Markman era, the Federal Circuit has focused attention on the public notice function of patent claims in equivalents cases, and it has come to emphasize precision and accuracy in claim drafting. This Article argues that recent judicial emphasis on the public notice function of patent claims is an inappropriate innovation policy. The demand for highly refined patent claims increases patent acquisition expenditures that are unlikely to increase social welfare, cause patent rights to be distributed unevenly, and are inconsistent with the structural features of the patent system. This Article presents two mechanisms to accommodate the doctrine of equivalents in the post-Markman era. One is the reinvigoration of the reissue proceeding. The other is allowing judicial amendment of patent claims during infringement litigation proceedings, much like the longstanding British practice. This shift would allow courts to pursue the policy goals of Markman for literal and equivalent infringement alike