Can patent applications be written in plain English? While doing a patent search I've come across a lot of legalese. Is there any benefit to transforming the plain English that I would use to describe my invention into the type of legalese that is found in so many patents? In other words when writing a patent application can I just use plain English? Doing so would make my patent application different than all the ones that I've looked at which is what concerns me. I've seen some that are so full of legalese that the true subject matter is almost incomprehensible. If nothing else I'm confident they could be explained more clearly without the legalese. So is the use of legalese necessary? Is it a cargo cult situation? Can I ELI5 the entire application except the parts where it's necessary to use bigger words?
In theory "legalese" is English: you will find every word in the dictionary, and the rules of grammar are exactly the same. However in practice it is true that legal documents are often written in a very specific style. There are a number of possible reasons for this: The document must say what it intends very precisely. Most regular language is quite sloppy and ambiguous, but lawyers share with computer programmers the need to ensure that what is said is precisely what is meant. A legal document exists within a legal system in which certain words or phrases carry very specific meanings. For instance in the UK the words "in trust" when talking about money or property will automatically import a huge body of law (and its also possible to have that law apply even if you don't use the magic words). Lawyers know about these things, and will write a document to either invoke or avoid those bodies of law as they see fit. Related to (2) above, laws and legal precedents give lists of things that must be done or proved. Legal documents will often follow these lists using the same terms in order to avoid future challenges. For instance US patent law specifies what must go into a patent application, so you had better follow the format and use the same subject headings. Within patents in particular, the patent office manual allows a patent to be rejected because of informal language that leaves the patent unclear. Patent lawyers and examiners have evolved an informal set of conventions about how things are said. If you use these conventions the examiner will have a much easier time understanding what you mean. Its not "cargo cult", more a specialised language. (Note: the following is about the US patent system, but similar considerations apply everywhere.) Lets take a look at an example patent picked at random: The abstract lists the key elements of the invention in very abstract terms, such as "vibrating mechanism" and "power source". If you were writing this in "informal" language you might mention a specific power source such as a battery. But doing so limits your invention: what if something other than a battery (such as a super-capacitor or spring-driven generator) is used? That would be a separate invention not covered by your patent. So patent lawyers take time to think and ask about generalisations. The next interesting part is the Claims. These set out precisely what is and is not covered by the invention. If the Claims don't cover it then its not in the patent. The format of each Claim is defined in 35 US 112, so if you don't do it like that it won't count. Finally we get to the Description. This is intended to explain the invention to "any person skilled in the art". It also needs to explain the prior art and show why the invention is new and useful, because those are statutory requirements. Much of this is in fact written in an ELI5 way, if the 5-year-old had swallowed a dictionary. The reason is that any little thing omitted or assumed can be used by a future challenger claiming that the hypothetical "person skilled in the art" would have failed to understand or know it. So lets take a sample paragraph from this patent (numbers refer to diagrams in the patent): The electrical connection 22 may include a circuit device that transforms a DC power provided by the power source 26 to AC power for the vibrating mechanism 28, which circuit devices are known to those having ordinary skill in the art of circuit design. This anticipates a possible variation on the invention and stops it being patented separately. It asserts that the "circuit devices" are known, so it doesn't need to describe them in detail. If that assertion wasn't there then someone might challenge the patent on that point, but since the assertion has been accepted by the patent examiner it is presumed to be correct. Note the "... ordinary skill in the art ..." phrase: this is explicitly calling out to the language in Title 35. You might imagine that such a variation would be obvious, and therefore not patentable. However it is very difficult for a court to decide in hindsight whether something would really be obvious to a person skilled in the art; you wind up with each side hiring expert witnesses who will give competing testimony as to whether it seems obvious to them. As a result the courts have set a very low bar to a claim that something is "non-obvious". The language used throughout a patent is of vital importance: infringement cases can hinge on the most trivial of linguistic issues. This blog post by a patent lawyer has a list of examples, including this one: For example, in Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., Chef America tried to protect a cooking step for heating a dough at a certain temperature inside an oven. But Chef America drafted the claim to read “heating the . . . dough to a temperature in the range of about 400 degrees F. to 850 degrees F.” The Federal Circuit reasoned that “to” is not “at” and, thus, the claim required the dough (not the oven) to be heated to the specified temperature. The Court then ruled that the claim was not infringed. In fact, under the Court’s claim construction, this claim could not possibly be infringed unless one wanted to make burned dough. See also this case on "partially" not including "totally", and this post on why the word "disclosure" is now used instead of "invention". Patent lawyers call this kind of thing "patent profanity", i.e things you simply do not say. So if you don't use this kind of "legalese" in your patent the following things are much more likely: Your application will be rejected because the examiner cannot understand exactly what your invention consists of. Trivial variations on your invention will turn out not to be covered. Someone will challenge your patent on the grounds that you didn't explain everything that a "person skilled in the art" might need to know.
I'm going to focus on one part of your question, because I think it is informative to the entire question: "By publishing those data in a copyrighted book are they now in the public domain?" Insofar as copyright is concerned, the "facts" are simply never copyrightable. What is copyrightable is the expression of the fact. So you publish a book and it contains many facts. You retain copyright over how you expressed the facts, meaning the word choice, format of presentation and so on. The discussion of this point always leads people to ask the following two questions: What if the "facts" are closely related to the way they are expressed? For example, a phonebook contains "facts" about phone numbers. The individual numbers are not subject to copyright. But if the way they were organized was clever (i.e. not merely alphabetical) the presentation may be copyrighted. Doesn't that line get blurred? Why doesn't "the presentation order" count as a "fact?" It does get blurred! And courts use nuanced case law and judgment to figure out which side of the line a given thing is. However, one backstop is that if AN EXPRESSION is so closely related to the IDEA BEING EXPRESSED that the IDEA cannot be otherwise expressed, then then the EXPRESSION is not subject to copyright protection. To answer your specific questions: The book is subject to copyright. The facts in the book are not. Someone else could publish a book with the same measurements so long as they are expressing the facts with sufficient difference from the original. I'm not familiar with CUSIP numbers. However, there are two things to say here. (A) it sounds like you are describing a contractual relationship between the people who have the numbers. This is not governed by copyright; it is governed by contract between the parties. If these numbers could be treated as a "trade secret" they might be protected IP in that way. But given that they are likely circulated at least a bit, they don't seem like candidates for "trade secret" protection. To your question, "what is the effect of one person leaking?" If "trade secret" law was doing any "work" here... then yes, the trade secret would be undone once the information was public. But like I said, its likely this is actually all about contracts not intellectual property protection. (B) The "facts" of "which number is associated with which instrument" is likely NOT subject to copyright at any time. The specific numbering code COULD BE copyrighted, but in reality is almost certainly TOO CLOSELY tied to the IDEA being expressed to be copyrighted. Could the number be expressed otherwise? If not, then its likely not protected by copyright. -- Big take away here: You seem to be confused about the concept of "facts" getting into the public domain. That's not exactly what copyright is about. Copyright would protect the expression of facts. An expression can become public domain if it is sufficiently old or if the creator designates it as public domain work. But simply "putting something out there" does nothing to alter the copyright status of the thing.
Under US law, words of a language are facts, which are not protected by copyright. Only creative expressions are protected. There are various aspects of a dictionary which are capable of protection, such as the pairing of a word and a translation, the organization of an entry (headword, POS information, the structure of sets of entries according to a grammatical analysis as in an Arabic dictionary). The order of presentation of the words could be protected (relevant for languages with complex morphology where words are grouped according to roots, rather than strict alphabetization). Finally, the criteria of selection for inclusion might involve a smidgen of creativity, but there is no creativity involved in publishing &quot;all of the words that I collected&quot;.
What interests me, is if the company that will be fulfilling the &quot;abracadabra&quot; request is able to not provide &quot;hocus pocus&quot; emails (internally — or later in the litigation, if the truth is uncovered — justifying it that the team fulfilling the request does not speak the language and was unaware of the existence of these communications in a foreign language)? Are there legal mechanisms that prevent such defense using &quot;foreign language&quot;? The legal obligation in discovery is to produce compliant documents without regard to their language. Good faith efforts need to be used. Generally speaking, a mere single language boolean or key word search of a database is not a sufficient effort to meet that obligation. Somebody was involved in writing the relevant emails and the lawyer and client representative needs to talk to the people who were involved, not just search a database, to make sure that all relevant materials are disclosed by whatever means are necessary to do so. This is why discovery is often the most expensive part of litigation. This doesn't mean that every good faith mistaken omission from discovery responses results in a court sanction if it is promptly remedied if later discovered. But, compliance requires engagement of the universe of possible documents with much more knowing and intelligent understanding that the question seems to assume. For what it is worth, I have litigated a case in a U.S. court where none of the parties (nor the judge) was fluent in the relevant language (Italian) of most of the documents, but both parties understood and agreed on the meaning of the relevant Italian business documents (invoices and bank statements mostly running to hundreds of pages), and they testified to the judge regarding what those documents meant in English, without the relevant documents ever being actually translated in full by anyone. Language never became a meaningful issue, in part, because the more important issue was understanding the context of how the Italian banking system and commercial transactions were structured and once that was understood, the documents themselves were easily enough understood from context.
Yes, in a sense. One patent is US 7444589 Automated patent office documentation by AT&amp;T. Another is US 6434580B1 System, method, and recording medium for drafting and preparing patent specifications from NEC. In most locations patents on a business method are not allowed but, although controversial, they are allowed in the U.S. Of course the fundamental requirement for patentablity is to be new. Since patenting itself is very old any patent on the topic would need to cover some narrow aspect, like the AT&amp;T and NEC patents. I do not understand the assumption that such a patent would necessarily be licensed freely.
For purposes of determining inventorship, the location the invention was made in is irrelevant. Before the AIA, the location of a publication or other public knowledge was relevant (in the U.S. vs outside the U.S.) The AIA did away with that distinction. Pre AIA 35 USC 102 had two reference to "in this country". Post AIA there is no distinction made as to where the prior art was known or used or on-sale. I think this makes the provisions you are looking at moot, at least in terms of patentability. Before AIA, adding in the space provision would make a use in space a use in the U.S. and therefore potentially prior art. Now it is potentially prior art without any issue of having happened in the U.S. PRE AIA 102 A person shall be entitled to a patent unless — (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, or (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, or POST AIA 102 [a] person shall be entitled to a patent unless— (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or (2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
What a statute means can be difficult to determine. There are several approaches to statutory interpretation that could be helpful: Textual: The plain meaning doesn't confine "use" to a few particular types of uses. The plain text provides an expansive prohibition on any use of an electronic communication device. Legislative history/legislative intent: The previous version of the subsection did limit prohibited uses to only composing, sending, or reading electronic messages. Given the amendment, it seems that the legislature no longer desired that limitation. When the bill was introduced, Rep. D'Amico stated the purpose of the bill was to "[expand] the prohibition on driving while using an electronic communication device to include uses beyond composing, sending, or reading an electronic message." During debate, when asked what a person should do that doesn't have Bluetooth, Rep. D'Amico suggested "You put it on speaker phone". When asked, "Where would you place the phone?", Rep D'Amico replied, "Wherever you feel like; just not next to your ear." During the same debate, D'Amico described the bill: "What House Bill 1247 does is ban handheld cell phones while driving a vehicle." In my opinion, the declaration of the bill's sponsor, and the debate surrounding the bill treated it as expanding the prohibition from including only texting and email to also include voice conversations. As far as I can tell, the full scope of "using" under this statute hasn't been tested in court, but I could see this going either way. The plain text provides an expansive prohibition on any use of an electronic communication device. However, a court might also be convinced by the legislative intent that only aims to add handheld voice communications to the previous list of prohibited activities (or it least it could be argued that this is the case). Further, under a purposive construction, a court could even look beyond the explicit legislative intent and find that the core purpose was to prevent distraction, in which case "using" could include any activity on your electronic device that distracts you as if you were texting, or making a phone call (eg. selecting the next song to play in your music app).
If I make a working prototype and upload it on youtube will it prevent others from getting a patent on the idea? Generally yes. If the core information is accessible to the public, it becomes &quot;prior art&quot; and cannot be patented anymore by someone else. That includes you. Depending on local legislation, you have a small time window to apply for a patent (after disclosure) but if you don't, it's public domain and everybody is free to use it. If it's mainly code, you may be able to upload to Github and attach a license to it but that offers only limited protection. Globally? That depends on local legislation which there are too many of, to answer this here.