2 ms·
Only claims define the intellectual property rights, I get that. But patent jargon is often so abstruse and vague that you need to read much of the supporting
by rjdagost 12y ago
Only claims define the intellectual property rights, I get that. But patent jargon is often so abstruse and vague that you need to read much of the supporting text to even understand the claims. Sometimes when I look at claims for patents that I'm an inventor on even I don't know what IP is being staked out based on the claims section alone.
- teachingaway 12y agoAgree. Patent language is way too confusing. Hopefully the Supreme Court's ruling in Nautilus v. Biosig will force lawyers to clarify their patent language. From Justice Ginsburg: > we hold that a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. https://medium.com/patents-technology-law/good-news-in-the-fight-against-patent-trolls-fcb046b21822 https://medium.com/patents-technology-law/good-news-in-the-f...
- tjradcliffe 12y agoOne trick I find very useful is to read the claims out loud. It forces me to slow down and concentrate on the words. Also, some patent lawyers have a "said fetish": every component is referred to as "said component" so you get sentences like "A widget consisting of a foo, a bar and a finangle, with said foo afixed atop said bar and said finangle to make an assembly where said assembly has said foo..." etc. The presence of the "said"s makes the claims weirdly unreadable, as they grab scarce attention from the lay reader, so just blip over them when reading.