Re: Seen on aus.legal
From: Richard (mr_reznat_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/30/04
- Next message: Torsten Poulin: "Re: Changes to vowel parallelogram?"
- Previous message: Ruud Harmsen: "Re: Changes to vowel parallelogram?"
- In reply to: benlizross: "Re: Seen on aus.legal"
- Next in thread: Richard Herring: "Re: Seen on aus.legal"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 30 Nov 2004 11:27:17 -0800
The term "caveat" is not used in current U.S. patent law. There are
several related terms, however.
- If two patent applications are simultaneously pending (or one
patent has issued less than one year prior) which claim the same
matter, then an INTERFERENCE proceeding may be declared by the patent
office to determine who invented first.
- If a party becomes aware of a patent application prior to the
publication of that application that party may file a PROTEST,
explaining to the patent examiner why that application should not
issue as a patent.
- If a party becomes aware of a patent application after publication
of that application that party may file a third party SUBMISSION,
citing prior art to the examiner.
- After a patent issues, a party may file a petition for a
REEXAMINATION of the patent. If the patent office believes that there
is a substantial question of validity, they will initiate the
proceeding.
These are just thumb nail descriptions of these proceedings, for a
full description contact a patent agent or attorney.
[...snip...]
>
> There's an old Big Webster next door and occasionally I like to wipe the
> grime off it and look something up. (The title page is missing, but the
> Preface is dated 1909.)
>
> caveat n. 1a. Eng.Patent Law. A notice filed upon an application for
> renewal of a patent by a person who wishes to oppose the renewal.
> 1b. U.S.Patent Laws. A notice given to the Patent Office of the
> caveator's claim as inventor, in order to prevent the grant of a patent
> to another person for the same alleged invention...
>
> caveat v.i. 1. To enter a caveat.
>
> So there is, or was, such a term in US patent law, but the absence of a
> v.t. would preclude "caveated". This as of 1909. Updates to follow.
>
> Ross Clark
- Next message: Torsten Poulin: "Re: Changes to vowel parallelogram?"
- Previous message: Ruud Harmsen: "Re: Changes to vowel parallelogram?"
- In reply to: benlizross: "Re: Seen on aus.legal"
- Next in thread: Richard Herring: "Re: Seen on aus.legal"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|