A somewhat similar project that I started at Google (this was US-only) was:
Common constructions of computer terms ("database", "processor", "thread", etc.) These words appear in patent claims, and the claims are what determine infringement (I use the word "construction" instead of "definition" deliberately).
You might well think there's a standard dictionary of them. There is not, at least as of 5-6 years ago. The parties in a lawsuit propose a construction, and the judge creates one. He's not obliged to follow precedent. Thus you find that "database," for example, has been construed to include a flat file. The construction is supposed to be what the patent writer meant at the time of filing OR what the general industry meaning was.
If that sounds murky, it is. With a chemical patent, there are standard meanings for words, and you won't get far arguing that "methylated" doesn't mean what it generally means. Not so in software.
Often after the judge's claim construction, one side will offer to settle, because they know they'll lose.
Sometimes you'll see a patent from some other country, and of course the meaning of the terms there may not be the same as in the US. So this would be a much, much bigger project than you've taken on.
I think patent attorneys and agents could avoid most of this problem if they wrote better. I'm a patent examiner (and this post only represents my own opinion, not that of the USPTO or US govt.), but it seems to me that patent applications are typically written quickly. Clearly defining terms is an afterthought, particularly given that many attorneys and agents see value in being vague.
Yes, maybe their explicit definition could cause them trouble later, but I think the lack of an explicit definition is more likely to cause trouble. I have examined applications with useful explicit definitions, or a reference to a preferred dictionary. I also examined one application where the applicant redefined a term contrary to its normal meaning in the middle of the specification, and that redefinition was critical to understanding the claims. I personally think all special definitions should go in an easy-to-find section.
Edit: I'll also use this opportunity to make a shameless plug for my patent claim analyzer, which will identify a lot of ambiguous language in patent claims.
Having been in Litigation: there's immense value in having vague terms. 15 years later when you're asserting the patent, you really need to be able to say your claims cover something you couldn't possibly have anticipated.
I know that's legal gamesmanship and I'm not applauding it.
Your experience reminds me of my own disappointment I experienced as an engineer learning the law: It's nowhere near as organized, structured, and rational as I assumed it would be.
Comments
A somewhat similar project that I started at Google (this was US-only) was:
Common constructions of computer terms ("database", "processor", "thread", etc.) These words appear in patent claims, and the claims are what determine infringement (I use the word "construction" instead of "definition" deliberately).
You might well think there's a standard dictionary of them. There is not, at least as of 5-6 years ago. The parties in a lawsuit propose a construction, and the judge creates one. He's not obliged to follow precedent. Thus you find that "database," for example, has been construed to include a flat file. The construction is supposed to be what the patent writer meant at the time of filing OR what the general industry meaning was.
If that sounds murky, it is. With a chemical patent, there are standard meanings for words, and you won't get far arguing that "methylated" doesn't mean what it generally means. Not so in software.
Often after the judge's claim construction, one side will offer to settle, because they know they'll lose.
Sometimes you'll see a patent from some other country, and of course the meaning of the terms there may not be the same as in the US. So this would be a much, much bigger project than you've taken on.
There are some patent dictionaries based on how US courts defined terms. For example (over a decade old): http://www.pubpat.org/garrod-glossaries.htm
The USPTO also had a glossary pilot program at some point, but it ended and I guess was not considered useful: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/glossary-initiativ...
I think patent attorneys and agents could avoid most of this problem if they wrote better. I'm a patent examiner (and this post only represents my own opinion, not that of the USPTO or US govt.), but it seems to me that patent applications are typically written quickly. Clearly defining terms is an afterthought, particularly given that many attorneys and agents see value in being vague.
Yes, maybe their explicit definition could cause them trouble later, but I think the lack of an explicit definition is more likely to cause trouble. I have examined applications with useful explicit definitions, or a reference to a preferred dictionary. I also examined one application where the applicant redefined a term contrary to its normal meaning in the middle of the specification, and that redefinition was critical to understanding the claims. I personally think all special definitions should go in an easy-to-find section.
Edit: I'll also use this opportunity to make a shameless plug for my patent claim analyzer, which will identify a lot of ambiguous language in patent claims.
Thanks, and I'm all about shameless plugs :)
Having been in Litigation: there's immense value in having vague terms. 15 years later when you're asserting the patent, you really need to be able to say your claims cover something you couldn't possibly have anticipated.
I know that's legal gamesmanship and I'm not applauding it.
Your experience reminds me of my own disappointment I experienced as an engineer learning the law: It's nowhere near as organized, structured, and rational as I assumed it would be.