Literal Support Definition In the context of patent disclosure: What is the nuanced meaning of Literal Support? Link to passage using the term Literal Support Written Description ≠ Literal Support “The test ... is whether the disclosure of the application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter, rather than the presence or absence of literal support in the specification for the claim language. ... The content of the drawings may also be considered ...”
Literal support means that the words of the claim are identical to words in the description. It does not have any particular nuanced meaning. The purpose of that presentation is to demonstrate that the requirements for written description in the US go far beyond literal support. That is, even if the claims are replicated in the description, that is not enough to satisfy the written description requirement (or indeed, the enablement or best mode requirements). In fact, the presentation you link to includes a nice quote from In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 217 US PQ 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1983): The test ... is whether the disclosure of the application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter, rather than the presence or absence of literal support in the specification for the claim language. Literal support therefore does not have much place in US law. However, historically, countries inheriting their patent system from the UK had a requirement for fair basis, where the claims had to be fairly based on the description. For example, the now superseded Patents Act 1949 (UK) s 4(4) provided: The claim or claims of a complete specification must relate to a single invention, must be clear and succinct, and must be fairly based on the matter disclosed in the specification. This was a low bar, and literal support (where the wording of the claims are identical to words in the description) would be sufficient (though not required). This gave rise to the practice of having consistory clauses, where the claims were literally copied into the summary of invention section. However, most (or possibly even all) countries have moved on to a support requirement now. Yet the practice of consistory clauses lives on. Literal support also appears in some guise in European law. Art 123(2) EPC provides: The European patent application or European patent may not be amended in such a way that it contains subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed. This is often imprecisely glossed as a requirement that the wording of an amendment must appear verbatim in the description as originally filed. That is, an amendment is generally allowable if it has literal support in the application (and does not otherwise impermissibly combine embodiments and the like). In practice though, literal support is only one factor for compliance with Art 123(2) EPC, and is neither necessary nor sufficient on its own.
Your translation of the first statement is not correct. Saying that one promises to tell the truth is not saying that one promises to not tell a falsehood. If telling truth and telling falsehood are items labeled T and F, then this is a logical statement ~(T > ~F) for ~ negation and > implication. The combination of the first and third statements is necessary to obtain what you have called Statement 1, while the combination of the first and second statements is necessary to obtain what you call Statement 2. It could also be argued that the first statement is not even necessary, as it is just a less strict version of the second statement (and a less desirable one at that, if one values the honest sharing of complete knowledge), but the redundancy does not harm the meaning or impact of the following statements.
Many attorneys would have an "intake form" that they would like you to complete in advance, and every lawyer will want your name and contact information at a first meeting. But, other attorneys would prefer to meet with you first, without getting details about the work to be done, as many patent applicants are very reluctant to put information in writing that is shared with others and many patent applicants don't know what is relevant. There is no special terminology for the things that you should prepare for prior to meeting with an attorney. And, anyone who completed a provisional patent application is not so half-baked in their idea that it is premature to meet with a patent lawyer. Having done a provisional patent application is more than enough due diligence and preparation for such a meeting. The marginal cases where preparation by clients is often lacking are those cases where the concept of the invention isn't fully fleshed out yet and the inventor is trying to work with a patent lawyer to figure out what part of "idea space" isn't already protected by patents. There are basically three kinds of information that are relevant: When was the invention invented, made public, or shared with anyone? Is there anyone else who could be considered a co-inventor? For example, if you have an employment agreement discussing intellectual property, you should bring it. You would need your full provisional patent application, which will explain most of the necessary information but may need to be clarified for a final application. If visual aids are helpful to explaining your invention or you have prototypes small enough to bring with you, you should bring them, even if they are beyond the scope of the provisional patent application's contents. You ideally should do some due diligence regarding "prior art" to provide some assurance that the idea you propose hasn't already been patented or discovered, but not every patent applicant has the ability to do such a prior art search. At a minimum, you should be able to say in good faith that you've never seen a similar invention and explain why you think personally that your invention is novel. Generally, you should not order a professional patent search before you have discussed it with your patent attorney. But, if you are able to do so and have reviewed existing patents, reviewed literature you are able to access, and have done some Google searches for similar ideas, that would be more than reasonable preparation. But, don't delay meeting with a patent lawyer because you haven't done those things. A patent lawyer needs lead time to prepare the application by the deadline for doing so (ideally, several months, and at a minimum, several weeks to a couple of months). In addition, you should be prepared to discuss why your invention is not obvious to someone skilled in the relevant field and what utility your patent has to a user of the invention. Similarly, you should be ready to discuss the larger context of the field in which you have an invention, such as how others usually deal with the issue that your invention addresses in the status quo and what other notable new inventions there are in that field. "Buzz words" related to your kind of invention are also very helpful for doing searches of prior art. Finally, you should be prepared to demonstrate that you have the capacity to pay for the patent lawyer's work. Patent lawyers almost never do pro bono (i.e. charitable) patent work for individual inventors (sometimes they might, for example, for a university clinic aimed at inventing things for use in the Third World), and are loathe to do work on a contingent or on credit basis, although sometimes they would be willing to work on credit if you could provide security for the debt beyond the patent itself (e.g. putting the equity in your home up as collateral). A patent lawyer would almost always charge more than $10,000 to do the work beyond an initial consultation (which wouldn't be free but might cost $100-$1000), and often a patent could cost $100,000 for each patent for legal work, if it was at all complex. Patent lawyer have among the highest hourly rates of all kinds of attorneys. So, the more clearly thought out you are, the better organized your paperwork is, and the more efficiently you can communicate your invention, the less you will pay for meeting with the patent lawyer while "the meter is running." Even in the unlikely case that the patent lawyer will do the work on credit, the patent lawyer will at a minimum insist that you provide the filing fees up front. If you are truly broke, you need a business partner to finance the patenting process for you. You can look at the relevant fee schedules at the patent and trademark office website. The patent lawyer would also expect any out of pocket costs for things like a professional prior art search, having quality drawings prepared, courier fees, and mailing costs to be paid in advance, even if doing some of the legal work on credit. The prior art search is the most expensive item and it would usually cost in the low single digit thousands of dollars.
It is legsl to include references showing readers where facts you include in your article were derived, or where they can be supported. Indeed academic ethics generally require doing so, although there is (in most cases) no legal requirement to do so. Listing the title, author, and publication information of a source is not an infringement of copyright. That J. Jones published an article on &quot;How to Find the Purple Moth&quot; [imaginary example] in volume 28 of the Journal of Moth Science is a fact.Facts are never protected by copyright. Indeed in US law 17 USC 102(b) provides that: b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. The laws of other countries are similar on this point. Indeed I do not know of any country in which facts are protected by copyright. So, including such references is fully legal, and no permission from the sources being cited is required. This is true whatever form the reference takes. In particular, if an online address for the content is included, this is still true. I do not know whether Medium, or any other specific publishing platform, will pat fees to authors based on clik-thru from such citations. That depends on their particular policies, which might be found in their Terms of Service or other policy document.
I will not speak to your specific situation. I am unfamiliar with the jurisdiction and real estate contracts are one of the most highly regulated contracts so local statutes may override common law. In general, the terms of a contract are what the parties agree; the written document is not the contract - it is evidence of the contract. In a case where the parties agree that the written version is wrong then the written version is wrong. Where the parties disagree that the written version is wrong (or agree that it is wrong but disagree as to how) then each will need to provide evidence to support their position. A signed written contract that supports one parties position is extremely strong evidence! The other party would need to provide some overwhelming evidence to trump this. The general position that the courts take is that the written contract accurately documents the agreement unless someone can prove that it doesn't.
The terms are used in inconsistent and overlapping ways. Their meaning has to be determined from context. Words do not have universal meanings in all contexts in the law. A loan generally refers to a delivery of something (often money) with a legally binding expectation that it will be returned with some additional compensation to the lender, later on. To "use a loan" would mean actually receiving a loan from someone. A "grant of a loan" usually means agreeing to make a loan in the near future, rather than actually carrying out the loan at that time. Credit is a broader term with multiple senses. When a purchase is made "on credit", the sale is accompanied by a loan to the buyer to assist the buyer in making the purchase. But, the term a person's "credit" can also refer to an ability to borrow money, rather than to money that has already been loaned. A third sense of the word "credit" is a technical accounting sense of the word. In double entry accounting, a credit is an event that increases a person's assets or reduces their liabilities (in contrast to a "debit" which does the reverse). A transaction that is a credit to one party in double entry accounting is usually a debit with respect to the other party, or is part of an offsetting debt-credit pair of impacts on the person's books in a single event.
Does "in the course of providing services" mean "during the same time as providing services" or "for the purpose of providing services" or something else? I ask because I am a programmer who will be working on my own project during the same period as I am providing services to this Client, but after-hours and not for the same purpose or business. I want to make sure that what I create for myself I will own. The best definitions that come to mind off the cuff are "related to" and "in connection with", and both of those phrases appear in the same sentence, so that is quite close to the mark. Black's Law Dictionary (5th edition 1979) (from my hard copy edition) defines "in the course of employment" as follows (citation omitted): The phase "in the course of" employment, as used in worker's compensation acts, related to time, place and circumstances under which accident occurred, and means injury happened while worker was at work in his or her employer's service. Dictionary.com defines "in the course of" as: during the course of. In the process or progress of The best definition I gleaned from relevant case law is as follows: [A]n invention made or conceived in performing, or as a result of performing, the work required by a contract is made or conceived "in the course of" that contract. That would be true even though the invention was not specifically sought in the terms of the contract. An invention is made or conceived "under" a contract when it is made or conceived during the life of the contract and the invention is, in whole or in part, specifically provided for by that contract. Fitch v. Atomic Energy Commn., 491 F.2d 1392, 1395 (Cust. &amp; Pat. App. 1974). The law which forms the background against which the contract term in question is drafted is discussed in the following language from a Federal Circuit patent law case: The general rule is that an individual owns the patent rights to the subject matter of which he is an inventor, even though he conceived it or reduced it to practice in the course of his employment. There are two exceptions to this rule: first, an employer owns an employee's invention if the employee is a party to an express contract to that effect; second, where an employee is hired to invent something or solve a particular problem, the property of the invention related to this effort may belong to the employer. Both exceptions are firmly grounded in the principles of contract law that allow parties to freely structure their transactions and obtain the benefit of any bargains reached. Banks v. Unisys Corp., 228 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2000). A similar contact is applied in the case Greene v. Ablon, 794 F.3d 133, 142 (1st Cir. 2015), but the term was not defined or disputed in that case. This case is still useful, however, for purposes of seeing the kind of issues that are typically raised in a case like this one and to assure yourself that the contract probably is enforceable. For the purposes of this question, the difference between an employee and an independent contractor is immaterial.
what does the phrase &quot;in this act unless context requires otherwise&quot; mean? It means that the provision or statutory definition is not to be imposed where its application would make no sense or would lead to an absurd outcome. Using the example point out, statutory or judicial references to &quot;laws of physics&quot;, &quot;law of supply and demand&quot;, and so forth are not to be construed as enactments or rulings issued by some authority. Accordingly, such laws are not susceptible to violation, enforcement, or repeal.