Talk:Patent prosecution

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Invention

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Invention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Invention on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InventionWikipedia:WikiProject InventionTemplate:WikiProject InventionInvention articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Do not merge..

I am not as familiar with how Wikipedia deals with sub topics or alternative terms, but I think this article should not be merged with patent application.

I needed to know what patent prosecution means. I wasn't sure if it refered to the application proces or the process of prosecute patent infringers. If the patent prosecution article was merged with the patent application article I doubt I would have found my answer as quickly as I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebrenner (talk • contribs)

I do not think this article should be merged. As someone who prosecutes patents, it is my opinion that a patent application is just one step in a very long process of getting a patent. Dratoff (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Combine..

Patent Prosecution is a process distinct from patent infringement litigation. Prosecution of the patent is merely the "back-and-forth" between the inventor and the USPTO, in an attempt to come to an equilibrium between allowable and non-allowable subject matter. A patent is "prosecuted" in the process of application. I beleive these terms could easily be combined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.174.73.17 (talk • contribs)

I think they should be merged - as per the above, prosecution is the process that occurs during a patent application. (don't forget, though, that's its not just the USPTO that issues patents). Kcordina ^Talk 14:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plugs for firms?

Surely it should be sufficient to have references to professional bodies like CIPA (in the UK), rather than direct plugs for specific firms? -- 62.8.111.131 15:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated Law

The Federal Circuit in In re Tanaka reversed the USPTO decision in Ex Parte Tanaka. The current law is the opposite of what is stated in this article. See this announcement by the USPTO: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/notices/tanaka01aug2011.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.19.2 (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I have indicated in the article that the information is dated. Please feel free to update the text directly. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Edcolins (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The abolition of the grace period (post COVID-19 successes)

WIPO expert indicated on that topic that

This section presents a specific viewpoint advocating for the worldwide abolition of the grace period, citing the success of European companies during the COVID-19 vaccine development as justification. However, this is just one perspective among many in an ongoing global debate. There is no consensus on the necessity or impact of grace periods in patent law. Many stakeholders argue that grace periods are crucial for protecting inventors who may inadvertently disclose their inventions before filing a patent application, thereby fostering innovation and collaboration. To ensure neutrality, the article should present multiple viewpoints on this issue, reflecting the diverse opinions and reasoning within the international patent community.

I think this is right. But I do not really know how to best identify viewpoints on this issue, and source those, nor providing weight to each view. It also felt a bit that this paragraph was a bit « out of place » in a middle of a paragraph very much dedicated to describing the process. So I thought it best moving it for now to a new section at the bottom, « Debate », but it would probably need more flesh. I am fairly sure there must be other debates as well... if any one can work on that section, that would be great. Anthere (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Walter Tau ?