Talk:Glossary of patent law terms

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Patentable subject matter

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Piracy Section

message: In this edit text is copy/paste here from here.-- Mdd (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy-paste registration 

message: I have just removed this sentence:
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Validity opinions

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100326070501/http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxr_1_10.htm to http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxr_1_10.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927003528/http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1517.pdf to http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1517.pdf
*Added  tag to https://www.aippi.org/download/comitees/209/WG209English.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060228211036/http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_154.htm to http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_154.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified