Patent Translations for non english patents

There is always a problem with translations in the hunt of most relevant prior art. I have dealt with the same on numerous occasions. though there are some tips which can help to get some good machine translation free of cost, as most of the time searcher only needs an idea of how invention works.

JAPAN

As japan is a major patent authority it is often required that Japanese patents can be machine translated though PAJ provides good and reliable machine translation but it only works for patents published after 1992. Before it there is not much patent translation available even subscription based patent searching databases only offer translation for Japanese patents after 1992.

Note: In case the Japanese patent is filed in WIPO you can obtain its translation via patent scope using google translator OR microsoft translator.

KOREA

Korean patents make things worse as the translation from Google translator is not very good. though in case patent is published after 2006 thomson innovation gives a good patent translation through its in house machine translation.

Note: In case Korean patent is filed in WIPO, you can obtain its translation via patent scope using KIPRIS translation which otherwise would cost 40$.

China 

chinese patent translation is new thing to patent searchers but as the filing is increasing very rapidly in chinese patent office. Chinese translations are also very vital to patent searching, all subscription based patent search database provide acceptable translation for Chinese patents, but for better one you can use SIPO translator. which gives better translation than Google OR Microsoft.

if any buddy has some other advises please leave comments. thanks

Google's updated Prior Art Search

Recently Google has added a new service to its patent search service "Prior art search".



the blue button left to read this patent.

This tool tries to find relevant prior art to the subject patent. It is a good value addition by google though it is still in its early stages and results are not very good but it is likely to get better. There is the screen shot that how it works.

There is also a addition by google to its patent search engine. now EU patents can also be searched on google, hope google makes a excellent free prior art search database.

Inventive Step

In many laws, the inventive step requirement means that a claimed invention shall not be obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the filing date (or, where applicable, priority date), or at the time the invention was made, in view of the prior art. In some countries, instead of the expression “obvious” (or “non-obvious”), expressions such as “inventions which could have been easily made” or “[an invention] having prominent substantive features and representing a notable progress” appear in national laws. Whatever term is used, the definition of “prior art” or “state of the art”, directly affects the determination of the inventive step. Where the scope of the prior art is limited, it is more likely that a certain claimed invention would be considered as involving an inventive step. Further, as for the novelty requirement, the interpretation and determination of the scope of the claimed invention is essential for the determination of the inventive step. 

National and regional authorities have developed various methodologies that can be applied when assessing inventive step, such as the “problem and solution”-approach used in the EPO, the “Graham test” in the United States of America and the “reasoning test” in Japan. Further, the interpretation of the term “inventive step”(“non-obviousness”) by national courts has developed into a body of case law in many countries. Since a vast majority of inventions are based on existing inventions, how to assess inventive step in an invention based on a combination of existing features has been extensively developed in a number of jurisdictions. Based on such case law, a number of patent offices publish examination guidelines, which are addressed primarily to the office’s examiners for consistent application of the law, but also to applicants and patent practitioners for a better understanding of office practices.64 Such examination guidelines typically contain the methodology, various factors to be taken into consideration (for example, problems to be solved by the invention, advantageous effects of the invention and secondary considerations such as commercial success and long-felt needs) and practical examples in various technical fields.

TRIPS Agreement

The TRIPS Agreement contains the national treatment principle and the most-favored-nation principle. The latter principle provides that any advantage, favor, privilege or immunity granted by a Member to the nationals of any other country (whether a Member or not) shall be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the nationals of all other Members, with certain specified exemptions. As is the case for national treatment, procedures provided in multilateral agreements concluded under the auspices of WIPO relating to the acquisition or maintenance of intellectual property rights are exempted from this principle.

Article 7 of the TRIPS Agreement in conjunction with the preamble of the Agreement sets out the objectives of the Agreement: the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations. Article 8 provides “principles” which recognize the rights of Members to adopt measures necessary to protect public health and nutrition, and to promote the public interest in sectors of vital importance to their socio-economic and technological development, provided that such measures are consistent with the provisions of this Agreement. It also recognizes that appropriate measures, provided that they are consistent with the Agreement, may be needed to prevent the abuse of intellectual property rights by right holders or the resort to practices which unreasonably restrain trade or adversely affect the international transfer of technology.

Compared with the treaties adopted under the auspices of WIPO,one of the main particularities of the TRIPS Agreement is the dispute settlement system established under the WTO Agreement. Articles XXII and XXIII of GATT 1994 (except subparagraph 1(b) and 1(c) of Article XXIII), as elaborated and applied by the WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, apply to consultations and the settlement of disputes under the TRIPS Agreement. This means that benefits enjoyed in another trade area may be withdrawn in retaliation for the violation of the TRIPS Agreement (so-called cross-retaliation).

Patent Thickets

In general the term “patent thicket” describes a situation where a product involves a web of patents that are owned by a number of different patentees so that a company which wants to commercialize the product is required to “clear” all the patents involved. This phenomenon is well-known in complex technologies, such as information and communication technologies, and in technical fields where a number of companies compete at the same level so that a fragmentation of patent ownership occurs. A changing research environment, increasing complexity and sophistication of technology and certain patenting strategies may have an influence on patent thickets.

Although there is no generally agreed objective definition of the term “patent thicket”, it suggests negative effects due to a “thicket” of patents, in particular, in the sense that third parties may be blocked from using a patented technology. The potential problems addressed are centered on the excessive transaction cost. Some suggest that cross-licensing may solve the vertical R&D and hold-up problems. By entering a cross licensing agreement, companies may secure freedom to operate. On the other hand, there is a risk that the problem is exacerbated because each competing company tries to build a bigger patent portfolio than competitors in order to create a better bargaining power to negotiate cross licenses. Another solution consists of patent pools to reduce a transaction cost, although some raise concerns about their compatibility with competition law.

The Budapest Treaty

The Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure

Disclosure of the invention is a requirement for the grant of patents. Normally, an invention is disclosed by means of a written description. Where an invention involves a microorganism or the use of a microorganism, disclosure is not always possible in writing but can sometimes only be effected by the deposit, with a specialized institution, of a sample of the microorganism.

In order to eliminate the need to deposit in each country in which patent protection is sought, the Budapest Treaty provides that the deposit of a microorganism with any “international depositary authority” suffices for the purposes of patent procedure before the national patent offices of all of the contracting States and before any regional patent office (if such a regional office declares that it recognizes the effects of the Treaty). The European Patent Office (EPO), the Eurasian Patent Organization (EAPO) and the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) have made such declarations. The “international depositary authority” is a scientific institution - typically a “culture collection” - which is capable of storing microorganisms. Presently, there are 37 such authorities.

The Treaty is primarily advantageous to the depositor who is an applicant for patents in several countries. Instead of depositing the microorganism in each and every country in which he files a patent application referring to that microorganism, he can deposit it only once, with one depositary, with the consequence of saving costs incurred by multiple deposits. Further, the security of the depositor is increased by the fact that, for an institution to become an international depositary authority, solemn assurances as to the seriousness and continued existence of that institution must be given by a State or by an intergovernmental industrial property organization.

35 USC 102 explained

"35 USC 102(a) THE INVENTION WAS KNOWN OR USED BY OTHERS IN THIS COUNTRY,OR PATENTED OR DESCRIBED IN A PRINTED PUBLICATION IN THIS OR A FOREIGN COUNTRY, BEFORE THE INVENTION THEREOF BY THE APPLICANT FOR PATENT"

102(a) defines that US is a first to invent country and you are not going to get a patent if your invention was known (in written form usually) or used by others (practiced) by others in USA before date of invention, and if it was patented or was described in printed publication by others in any country than also you are not going to patent.

There are some keywords like 'Others' which means other than inventor himself. If inventor himself has published or practices he might still get a patent but it was done by others than he is not going to get a patent. Keyword 'in this country' means that that if the patent was being used in any country other than USA then he might still be able to get a patent. Keyword 'printed publication in this or foreign country' means that if the invention was patented or was described in printed publication (no language bar is there so publication can be of any language) he is out of luck. The keyword 'public' means that the publication should be available to public if the publication was maintained as confidential within a company its not public but if the publication was published in a magazine in some obscure magazine in place like China in chinese language its public. Keyword "before the invention" means the date which inventor can prove he actually invented the invention and it could be before earliest filing date (if inventor can prove it with some written records).

"35 USC 102(b) THE INVENTION WAS PATENTED OR DESCRIBED IN A PRINTED PUBLICATION IN THIS OR A FOREIGN COUNTRY OR IN PUBLIC USE OR ON SALE IN THIS COUNTRY, MORE THAN ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION FOR PATENT IN THE UNITED STATES"