There are some patent dictionaries based on how US courts defined terms. For example (over a decade old): http://www.pubpat.org/garrod-glossaries.htm http://www

There are some patent dictionaries based on how US courts defined terms. For example (over a decade old): http://www.pubpat.org/garrod-glossaries.htm http://www.pubpat.org/garrod-glossaries.htm The USPTO also had a glossary pilot program at some point, but it ended and I guess was not considered useful: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/glossary-initiative https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/glossary-initiativ... I think patent attorneys and agents could avoid most of this problem if they wrote better. I'm a patent examiner (and this post only represents my own opinion, not that of the USPTO or US govt.), but it seems to me that patent applications are typically written quickly. Clearly defining terms is an afterthought, particularly given that many attorneys and agents see value in being vague. Yes, maybe their explicit definition could cause them trouble later, but I think the lack of an explicit definition is more likely to cause trouble. I have examined applications with useful explicit definitions, or a reference to a preferred dictionary. I also examined one application where the applicant redefined a term contrary to its normal meaning in the middle of the specification, and that redefinition was critical to understanding the claims. I personally think all special definitions should go in an easy-to-find section. Edit: I'll also use this opportunity to make a shameless plug for my patent claim analyzer, which will identify a lot of ambiguous language in patent claims.