Talk:United States patent law

message: I was looking around today and noticed there really isn't much of a mention in an articles related to the USPTO or US Patent Law that discuss the restriction ideas under the US Law.  There is an article for Unity of invention, but it is only used in the US when working on PCT cases.  So basically, I was hoping to get some ideas from people concerning their ideas on the placement of an article on the topic and what name convention you think would be best to avoid confusion or if the article could be incorporated into this article.  On an aside, does anyone have any opinions or suggestions on how to make this article more informative and not just a link to several other articles covering related concepts? -Thebdj 20:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related Patent Articles 

message: Why isn't the U.S. Constitution mentioned, but title 35 of U.S. federal law is? --71.161.214.252 02:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the article is a "stub", nowhere near complete. Oddly, the relevant part of the Constitution manages to be mentioned in patent, where it is a purely incidental matter, rather than being at the very heart of the article's subject as here. Feel free to fix it and add any other relevant matter that you may be able to provide! Tim B 07:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Constitution 

message: Is the statement about Philippines being the only other first-to-invent system correct?  Didn't Canada have first-to-invent?  Boundlessly 21:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they did...changed in 2002 or something. I've actually removed that sentence on the Philippines (no source, article is on US patent law, not first to invent). Cquan (after the beep...) 22:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other first to invent systems? 

message: I believe the last revision for removing "spam" is unwarranted. There is already a link in External Links that is also a "search engine" for U.S. Code Title 35. Why is the link that was removed considered spam but the current one is not?  Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.246.99.70 (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First, you linked to the site in general rather than a specific page (which you should have considering you named the link 35 USC, not Search USC). Also, the "search engine" you're referring to is a well-recognized and established legal resource used extensively by the legal community. I don't think you can say the same for your link. Cquan (after the beep...) 19:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions 

message: I would like more detail about pharmaceutical and drug/chemistry/biotechnology patents and how they differ from other types of patents (ie: extension possibilities, the history of patent application date vs FDA drug approval date and how that affects the effective life of a patent and how those laws changed, etc...).
See
http://www.ladas.com/Patents/Biotechnology/USPharmPatentLaw/USPhar32.html
For more details. It seems like this wikipedia page is so broad as to the point where it can be misleading. Someone may ask a question, "how long does a patent last" and the answer seems like a simple answer (this article would argue twenty years) but in reality it's more complicated than that (in the case biotech or chem or pharmaceutical patents, under certain circumstances, you get extensions to compensate for FDA approval time that can take away from the effective lifetime of a patent) and the current Wikipedia article might mislead people into thinking that pharmaceutical patents last twenty years and that this is the practical length of the patent and that there are no extensions or FDA approval waiting times to worry about.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.55.225 (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Edcolins (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: I came to this page looking for information on whether there was a federal or state system. However this was not explicitly mentioned. Perhaps this should be implemented. In Europe, at present, each Member State has its own patent (although the laws are substantially harmonised). It is not obvious whether this is the case in the USA.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.247.191 (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: U.S. States did have their own patent systems under the Articles of Confederation.  It was a mess hence the willingness to allow the new national government the power.  Copyright had a dual state/federal system until 1976 but most of the state system is now preempted by the Federal Law (notable exception is sound recordings in California).  Unregistered trademarks are regulated by state common law.  Registered marks are subject to Federal law. 205.204.38.50 (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion (II) 

message: It seems odd to have this category if patents have always been distributed on a gender-neutral basis.  Seems to imply a gender gap where none exists.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.1.215.166 (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women and Patents 

message: In Herman Hollerith: Forgotten Giant of Information Processing, Austrian, 1982, p.275, is In 1907, the laws of the land contained no provision under which an inventor could sue the government for patent infringement -- unless he had a prior written contract with the government.  If true - that for a time patents did not apply to the US government - a note/explanation here would seem worthwhile. 50.136.242.131 (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patents did not apply to US Government in 1907? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United States patent law. 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:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100324002446/http://www.uspto.gov:80/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_102.htm to http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_102.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article would benefit from a section on types of patents: design, utility, plants. Arllaw (talk) 08:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of patents