Talk:Glossary of patent law terms

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Intellectual property (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Intellectual property, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Intellectual propertyWikipedia:WikiProject Intellectual propertyTemplate:WikiProject Intellectual propertyIntellectual property articles

Patentable subject matter

There seem to be two different ways of defining this - positively and negatively. My definition was negative - stating that certain things are excluded (this revision). User:Jhnmdahl has gone with a positive definition (current revision) stating that certain fields are included.

Does anyone have an opinion either way? As far as the EPC and UK Patents Act are concerned, patents may be granted for inventions, but then certain things are not considered inventions - the definition is therefore a negative one (which is where my version came from). I think, but am not certain that the same is true in the US (can someone confirm please?). I think the point is important as the issue of what is excluded is key to a large swathes of patent law & reform at the moment, also some reading a positive definition may then be confused if they try and find a definition of what they can have a patent for. Kcordina ^Talk 08:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer your "negative" definition of patentable subject-matter. In law, patentability is mostly about exceptions to what can be patented, even though EPO case law has found some sort of positive definition (having a technical character, ... but even that positive definition does not cover all the exceptions, see e.g. Art. 53 EPC). --Edcolins 11:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piracy Section

I'm not sure that "Piracy" belongs here. Piracy is not a legal term related to Patent law. Rather, it's a term in popular use to describe a broad range of Patent, Copyright, and Trademark issues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.67.214.130 (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Good point. There are a number of other terms on the list as well that are not strictly speaking legal terms. Can you propose an alternative page structure/title?--Nowa 22:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-paste registration

In this edit text is copy/paste here from here.-- Mdd (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Validity opinions

I have just removed this sentence:

In addition, validity opinions cannot be sought from the USPTO as it leaves validity decisions to the courts.

Which kind of validity opinion is provided by the USPTO? Can anyone provide a source for this? Thanks.--Edcolins (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from the book Patent it Yourself, 2006 edition, by patent attorney David Pressman, page 408, section N on the Reexamination Process, "To institute a reexamination of any patent, anyone can file a request, together with the patent number, prior art, and the fee... The fee appears huge... The PTO will reexamine the claims in light of the prior art and either issue a certificate of patentability or unpatentability... In the event the latter occurs (certificate of unpatentability), the unpatentable claims will be canceled automatically by the PTO... If he PTO feels the newly cited art isn't relevant, it will terminate the proceeding and refund a large part of the fee." Greensburger (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wonder how often a reexamination is called "validity opinion". The quote you provided doesn't. Isn't the outcome of a USPTO reexamination process a decision rather than just an opinion? --Edcolins (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, the words "valid", "invalid", and "validity" refer to the claims being valid or not. The remainder of the patent (description, diagrams, etc) may be perfect, but not patentable, because of prior art or obviousness. A certificate of patentability affirms that the claims are valid and this is more than an opinion - it means the claims are enforcable in court. Hence, patentability and validity mean the same thing. Greensburger (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About Author’s Certificate

Information about Author’s Certificate (AC) on page “Glossary of patent legal concepts” is mistaken. Really AC is a form for protection of inventions, it is not protects inventors. AC is alternative document to patent, the other words AC is Soviet State patent, which in protecting of patent rights of the state and inventor gives priority to the state. It means that Soviet State nationalizes (expropriation) finance rights of inventors. Note in the conception of AC is given mistaken on page “Glossary of patent legal concepts” and moreover in the article “Integration of science and technology in CEMA, Issue 21 of Foreign economic reports. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1983. p. 35 (footnote 84)” formulation of AC is not at all. Inventcreat (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I have amended the entry and used two other English language sources. Is it better? --Edcolins (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

“…there is another kind of grant for an invention called Author's or Inventor's Certificate"[2] - Author's Certificate and Inventor's Certificate are different documents. Dear Edcolins, you do mistake again. Firstly study, what is Author’s certificate and what is Inventor's Certificate. Please do not take information from the second sources. Author’s certificate is trivial information and you can find it in Encyclopedias.

Do not you know why our article “Author’s certificate” vanished? Please, do not vandalism. Inventcreat (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article “Author’s certificate” has been deleted by Jac16888 for the following reason: "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Author%27s+Certificate". If you think that the information about "Author’s certificate" (in Glossary of patent legal concepts) is incorrect, please could you cite reliable sources in English. The information that I have added is verifiable (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). --Edcolins (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Glossary of patent law terms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]