Terminology research Archives — Translating Patents

Standard German patent terms

As with all languages, German follows strict formal conventions with respect to patent terminology. There are many German patent words and phrases that have precise English equivalent terms. Unfortunately, the Internet is littered with poorly translated German patents, and so it is not uncommon to find incorrectly translated terms being used in many English translations of German patents.

A term like “im Wesentlichen”, for instance, has a precise meaning and equivalent standard translation in patent texts (i.e. as “substantially” – meaning ‘for the most part’, when the allowance for slight deviation prevents an invention from being unnecessarily limited in scope to ‘overly’ precise parameters), whereas it is often found incorrectly translated and understood. (For instance, the similar term ‘wesentlich’ has a completely separate meaning (“essential”) in patent terminology).

Even in the same patent text, it is also possible to find words used in different contexts and thus to mean different things. For example, “Verfahren” could signify a “method”, a “process” more generally (i.e. not pertaining to the invention), application “proceedings” or even something like “displace”/“displacement”. The word “Gegenstand” most often refers to “subject matter” of a patent, but could also, in a given patent text, refer simply and generically to an “object”. Solid knowledge of key patent terminology is essential to the correct and precise translation of German patents into English. There are hundreds of precise patent terms that need to be learned and correctly applied when translating from German to English. It is not enough to just know the terms. For example, it may be important in a given context to discern where the author of a text is referring generically with “Verfahren” to a “process” that is being used in a claimed “method” so as not to confuse and conflate the term with the claimed subject matter.

Article usage

Sometimes it is also a matter of understanding conventions pertaining to the use of “articles”. “Subject matter” (“Gegenstand” in German), for instance, is not used with the indefinite article in English patents (or patent translations), and the plural is not “subject matters”, but “subjects”. The German “Gegenstand der Erfindung”, however, is often to be translated into English as “the invention relates to..”, rather than any construction involving “subject matter”. The subject matter of a set of claims is often presented in German without the use of articles: e.g. “Verfahren zum/zur […]”, i.e. “Method for […]”). It is common practice to refer to the first instance of the subject matter (i.e. ‘method’ in this case) in English with the indefinite article (e.g. “A method for manufacturing”, and then to use the definite article for dependent claims (e.g “The method according to claim 1 […]”).

Article usage in English and German generally differs, but in the case of patents it is a matter of learning a whole set of unique patent conventions when it comes to articles. For example, “Der unabhängige Anspruch 1” is translated as “independent claim 1”, but “der geltende Anspruch 1” is correctly translated with the definite article in English as “the current claim 1”.

Translating terminology of an invention

Your German to English translator will often need to do research in order to correctly translate certain terms. Referring to the IPC (categories), any possible patent family and priority documents, the closest prior art and ultimately the patent drawings and the description/specification of an invention will be required in order to accurately translate certain terms. The drawings are often indispensable when it comes to interpreting the meaning of some German terms, particularly when there is nothing but a cursory mention of them in the description.

A common example is “Grund-”, which in compound nouns could mean a “base” but also “main”. For example, “Grundlkörper” might mean “main body” or “base body”. Context is key and sometimes it is important to determine the element’s position in relation to other system or device components, which is often only possible by referring to the available drawings.

The term “Steg” is another favourite, which could easily be translated into English in a dozen different ways depending on the context — examples including “web”, “bridge”, “connecting piece”, “rib”, “bar” etc. In this case, it is necessary to determine the shape and function of “Steg” to find the correct English translation.

Conclusion

When translating German patents to English, not only are experience, proficiency and research a requisite for all good and successful patent translators, but knowledge of and access to standard patent formulations, terms, conventions and style guides are also indispensable.

Shortfalls of machine translation

The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) still employs human translators for translating patent documents. They undoubtedly have very good reasons to do so, as do we.

Although there is definitely a place for machine translation in this day and age, it is nonetheless just a tool and cannot replace the need for human translation.

One important reason is liability. When a machine mistranslates something or makes any manner of errors, a machine is not going to bear any legal liability with respect to your patent documents. However, if you want a professional team of translators to put their proverbial rubber stamp on a translation, then they will at least need to check and sign off on the translated work – and that requires cognitive work and time.

Another shortfall of machine translation has to do with security concerns. It is important to know who has control and access to machines and how they operate. Using open-access tools will often run the risk of making sensitive information (intellectual property) public. It is for this reason that not even WIPO allows use of its Patentscope tools for its published translated patent documents. With proprietary machine translation tools, it is important to understand how your sensitive information might be used to train models and build corpora / translation memory, which may continue to exist on company computers and/or cloud servers in perpetuity, with little to no oversight, transparency, permission or security.

The human touch

It is not uncommon when translating patent documents that we, translators, will come across unintentional errors in a text. One of the benefits of human translators is that we can query suspected errors and find/negotiate solutions to problems that go beyond run-of-the-mill translation. In this respect, we provide a level and breadth of quality control.

Examples of common/typical errors which only human translators are currently able to negotiate include (but are not limited to):

logical inconsistencies in texts (where a passage simply does not make sense);
citation errors (where prior art documents are misquoted and/or misnamed);
typographical or syntax errors (which will often require an overview and wider cross-referencing with other application documents to provide clarification);
unclearly worded passages/terms (which again may require either client consultation or broader reading of the application documents and/or patent family);
terminology inconsistencies in the source text (where different reference signs or terms are used to refer to the same thing, albeit with this not always being obvious);
omissions (e.g. of part-sentences, reference signs).

When at the prefiling stage, this human quality control check could actually help contribute to a successful application by allowing amendments to be made at this early stage. PCT/EPO rules and guidelines require that the description and claims are clear and formulated in a particular way.

Even beyond quality control, it is important for the patent translator to be able to transcend syntax and understand an invention/technology in the real world. Not only does a translation need to make sense in terms of syntax, but also to make sense per se. Human reason is what will help and is particularly important with unclearly or ambiguously worded patent texts.

In any patent document, we as your human translators will be able to apply ‘reason’ by going beyond the immediate text, for example, to consult the drawings (seeing how the description, claims and drawings correspond in order to better understand a given passage), research the IPC and patent family for broader context, consult the client/applicant where prudent, research relevant already translated documents, review relevant prior art documents and apply real-world logic.

Significantly, all of the above actions are a ‘must’ in any case when editing/checking already pre-translated (be that by human or machine) documents. There simply is no getting around the need for human translators. The stakes are often too great.

Tag Archive for: Terminology research

Idiosyncrasies of German patent translation — part 3

Why use human translation for patents?