Abzweigungsanmeldung
English translation: derivation
| GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 17:04 Aug 2, 2006 |
| German to English translations [PRO] Law/Patents - Law: Patents, Trademarks, Copyright | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
|  Selected response from: Brie Vernier Germany Local time: 06:08 | ||||||
Grading comment
| |||||||
| Summary of answers provided | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 +1 | derivation |
| ||
| 3 | disclosure of derivation |
| ||
| 3 -1 | derivate registration |
|
| Discussion entries: 2 | |
|---|---|
Answers
8 mins confidence: 
peer agreement (net): -1
peer agreement (net): -1derivate registration Explanation: you might be browsing along those lines. I haven't got the time |
| |
| Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) | ||
48 mins confidence:
disclosure of derivation Explanation: I'm not a specialist in patents and can't find a good definition of the source term, but I think this is the idea. As regards the legal device known as "derivation" ("Abzweigung") of an application for a utility model from an EP application, see OJ EPO 1987, 175. http://www.european-patent-office.org/legal/national/html/en... Abzweigung von der Patentanmeldung - derivation http://www.proz.com/kudoz/507627 While derivation will bar the issuance of a patent to the deriver, a disclosure by the deriver, absent a bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), will not bar the issuance of a patent to the party from which the subject matter was derived. In re Costello, 717 F.2d 1346, 1349, 219 USPQ 389, 390-91 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[a] prior art reference that is not a statutory bar may be overcome by two generally recognized methods": an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131, or an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 "showing that the relevant disclosure is a description of the applicant's own work"); In re Facius, 408 F.2d 1396, 1407, 161 USPQ 294, 302 (CCPA 1969) (subject matter incorporated into a patent that was brought to the attention of the patentee by applicant, and hence derived by the patentee from the applicant, is available for use against applicant unless applicant had actually invented the subject matter placed in the patent). http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_213... Ausscheidungsanmeldung - application for qualifying examination/divisional application/continuation-in-part (Romain) http://www.proz.com/kudoz/827242 |
| |
| Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) | ||
2 hrs confidence: peer agreement (net): +1
peer agreement (net): +1derivation Explanation: This is what Uexküll WB der Patent- und Markenpraxis calls it. As you say it is Austria, I presume a utility model is meant (rather than, say, a continuation-in-part). You may want to call it "derivation of a utility model application", but simply "derivation" seems to be okay, too. See, e.g. http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org/docs/docs.EN/invencionesTecnicas... "In almost all national utility model systems, certain mechanisms connect the utility model with the patent. These mechanisms exist to prevent mistakes on the part of the inventor in applying for adequate protection: there will often be a way to transform a patent application into a utility model application and vice versa. In other cases, these mechanisms prevent the invention from being deprived of protection when the inventor does not have a clear idea of the invention's level of inventiveness. Thus, inventors are allowed to apply simultaneously for a patent and a utility model for the same invention, the registration of the utility being granted only if the patent application fails for want of an inventive step. Finally, in other cases, there is an attempt to offer the inventor full protection for the invention by obtaining a utility model registration while the patent application is pending (which, as we have said, usually takes a couple of years). This is the case of the so-called internal priority (Germany, Austria, ...) or derivation (Germany, Austria, ...)." And http://www.european-patent-office.org/legal/national/html/en... As regards the legal device known as "derivation" ("Abzweigung") of an application for a utility model from an EP application, see OJ EPO 1987, 175. Just as an aside, the (German) patent attorneys I used to work for always called it "branching off a utility model", for which you can also find some googles, but I never felt entirely comfortable with it. -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2 hrs (2006-08-02 19:54:02 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- I see Kim already posted the EPO reference ... sorry about that. But this has nothing to do with "disclosure". They're talking about patent applications that have reached a point at which it is uncertain what protection is going to be granted, if any at all. To salvage what can be salvaged, applicants may choose to file a divisional application (Ausscheidungsanmeldung) or "derive"/"branch off" a utility model application, for the reasons explained at the Austrian Patent Office website. This is (just slightly) different than if the applicant had filed a utility model application right from the start. Reference: http://www.patent.bmvit.gv.at/Home/Erfindungsschutz/Gebrauch... |
| |
Grading comment
| ||
| Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) | ||
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
KudoZ™ translation help
The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.
See also:
Search millions of term translations