Tag Archive for: PCT

As intellectual property, a patent is only useful in the advancement of technology insofar as the information it contains can be shared. Patent translation is a crucial bridge to making valuable technology and innovation available and hence useful to more people and organisations globally.

However, since patents are territorial — i.e. they are only effective in those countries where they are granted or, in some cases, groups of countries when those countries have agreed by treaty (e.g. European Patent Convention or WIPO Patent Cooperation Treaty) to recognise/accept patents granted by other nations — patent translation is a necessity if an inventor wants to obtain protection for an invention in multiple jurisdictions.

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a ‘world patent’, and so, generally speaking, a patent has to be applied for in every jurisdiction where protection is sought. Each jurisdiction will have their own unique requirements and criteria for applying for and granting patents. One of those criteria will be the language in which the patent application is submitted.

Certain ‘streamlined’ processes are provided by international treaties for filing patent applications in multiple jurisdictions. Treaties like the European Patent Convention (EPC) or WIPO Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) allow an applicant to submit just one patent application with a single examining office (e.g. the European Patent Office (EPO) or the International Bureau of WIPO (Switzerland) or a regional/national office of a PCT-contracting nation (commonly referred to as the PCT receiving office)) and thereby seek patent protection in several or all of the Contracting States concerned without having to file a separate patent application in each state at the outset (e.g. under the EPC or PCT).

Nevertheless, the European Patent Office (EPO), for instance, only allows applications in English, French or German.

For international applications under the PCT, the patent application has to be:

a) in a language which the receiving office accepts (be that a national/regional office or the International Bureau of WIPO),

b) in a language accepted by the International Searching Authority, and

c) in a publication language (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Japanese, Russian or Spanish).

Even when an application is approved for grant by a regional office like EPO, the applicant will have to decide in which countries to validate their application, which will require translations into the respective national languages of those countries.

Translating patents into English

When it comes to validating an application or filing counterpart applications, the applicant’s decisions will be largely determined by where, for example, they intend to make, use or sell products that are covered by the patent. Each country will have its own language criteria for patents to be validated or filed there. In most cases, a national patent office will require patent documents (usually the patent claims as a minimum requirement) to be translated into the national or official language of the country where patent protection is sought.

It should also be no surprise that there is great demand for patent translation into English. English is the officially recognised language in many countries worldwide, even when there might be many other spoken languages in a given country. English is also the most common language for business and the de facto universal language for science. We can also see that English is a PCT publication language, an EPO application language and a widely accepted language by many International Searching Authorities. It therefore makes rational and good commercial sense to translate patent applications into English.

Patent translation is a specialist field of translation and so it is considerably difficult, if not impossible, to find patent translators for every language pair combination under the sun. Since English is such a widely used global language, it is often used as an intermediary language for translating into other national languages. For instance, a German patent translated into English could be used to translate a patent application into Kazakh or Thai. In fact, it is very common at Translating Patents for us to produce German to English translations which are used especially to this end, i.e. to translate into ‘third’ languages used for search, litigation or application purposes.

Through over a decade of translating written opinions of the Searching Authority on patent applications, one of the common objections we see raised by examiners is that of a patent application lacking clarity.

A patent application must satisfy Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Article 6, which specifies that:

“The claim or claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought. Claims shall be clear and concise. They shall be fully supported by the description.”

Although this rule seems simple enough, it is actually surprising just how many ways in which a set of claims can be made unclear.

Often the applicant will unwittingly assume that broadening the scope of their claims will increase their acceptance and success — ‘casting their net as wide as possible to ensure the best catch’. The applicant will attempt this by including lots of combinations and permutations of the subject matter.

This is often done by using expressions like “in particular”, “preferably” and “and/or”, which actually have no limiting effect on the invention and only reflect optionality (optional features).

When multiple dependent claims are presented, the “and/or” combinations can lead to many permutations of the invention that can even make a prior art search impossible for the examiner or simply “make the claim obscure or difficult to construe” (PCT Guidelines 5.18).

Too many possibilities and alternatives simply lead to a lack of clarity with respect to the claims in their entirety because it is too difficult or impossible to determine the scope of protection. This is one good reason why claims should be drafted “concisely”.

Particular care should be taken to ensure that all the implied combinations are also actually feasible and consistent, i.e. “can fairly be substituted one for another” (PCT Guidelines 5:18). It is common for dependent claims to be invalid for some combinations of “and” and “or” (when “and/or” is used). The applicant should therefore ask themselves whether a claim actually works for just an “and” combination and just an “or” combination of a claim to which it refers back and is dependent on.

In summary, when drafting claims, always ensure that the subject matter is limited and that any alternatives are supported across all the claims. Cares should be taken with words such as “in particular”, “and/or”, “preferably”, “for example” and “such as”. Be wary of the fact that such words or phrases will likely render features that follow them optional and therefore not provide any protection for them (PCT Guidelines 5:40).

error: Content is protected !!