Max, it can be difficult to discern what might have motivated a US-based author of a patent monopoly application to use certain words in the claims and to include specific definitions for (some of) those words in the description [21:32] schestowitz[TR3] . My sense is that this approach is most often driven by "best practice" in the US, often combined with reliance upon a healthy dose of boilerplate language.[21:32] schestowitz[TR3] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/feeds/comments/default?alt=rss Mon, 30 Jun 2025 16:49:29 +0000 Dear Max Drei, [21:32] schestowitz[TR3] In reply to your comment of Sunday... [21:32] schestowitz[TR3] In reply to your comment of Sunday... http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/06/eba-decides-g124-on-claim.html?showComment=1751302169576#c6410995168070529654 [21:32] schestowitz[TR3]
Dear Max Drei,
In reply to your comment of Sunday, 29 June 2025 at 22:22:00 GMT+1, I would like to say the following:
We have discussed the Actavis case many times on many blogs. I can follow Lord Neuberger when he states it does not follow that the patentee did not intend any other pemetrexed salts to infringe: the suggestion confuses the disclosure [21:32] schestowitz[TR3] of the specification of
I am indeed wanting the subject matter of the claims and the extent of protection to become identical.
I know they will never be, but in my view all actors in the patenting systems (well, except the Angora cat loving [21:32] schestowitz[TR3] applicants & their representatives) should at least work towards that goal.
Rather than diluting the primacy of the claims with the compromise from A69/the
Max, it is interesting that you see the "gathered" example in the case underlying G 1/24 as a good Angora cat.
Why so? Has the patent monopoly been litigated, with the patentee asserting a broad scope of pro [21:32] schestowitz[TR3] tection supported by reference to the definition of "gathered" in the description? Have any courts been (a) persuaded to adopt that broad scope of protection and (
BJ, you appear to be looking at this solely from the perspective of third parties and FTO. You also appear to be confusing the subject matter of the claims with the extent of protection provided by the claims ... or at least wan [21:32] schestowitz[TR3] ting those two things to become identical.
Maybe in your "ideal patenting system" things would work out how you want them. However, we are dealing
Daniel, on the subject of whether to resist demands to conform the description, I write below text from the UK Supreme Court which prompted the assessment in the CIPA Journal article and my words above:
"the addr [21:32] schestowitz[TR3] essee of the patent monopoly would, as I see it, understand that the reason why the claims were limited to the disodium salt was because that was the only pemetrexed salt on which
The Incus team is pleased to announce the release of Incus 6.14!
[21:35] schestowitz[TR3]This is a lighter release with quite a few welcome bugfixes and performance improvements, wrapping up some of the work with the University of Texas students and adding a few smaller features.
[21:35] schestowitz[TR3]It also fixes a couple of security issues affecting those using network ACLs on bridge networks using nftables and network isolation.
[21:35] schestowitz[TR3]