Talk:Copyright on the content of patents and in the context of patent prosecution

World View

We welcome anyone who can speak to the situation in other jurisdictions besides the US.--Nowa 12:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright expert needed...

I've added "{{expert}}" on the top of the article because it is felt that "a good copyright lawyer [is needed] to clarify the article"[1]. --Edcolins (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

article name

Its a bit long, and it sounds to me that "Copyright in Patent law" would be comparable in coverage but shorter. Is "Copyright on the content of patents and in the context of patent prosecution" used as a name somewhere? Belorn (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article's name is rather long indeed. But "copyright in patent law" doesn't seem to reflect the concepts developed in the article. It seems much too vague in my opinion. The article covers both whether the content of patent documents is covered by copyright law (i.e., can passages from a patent or patent applications be freely copied?) and whether scientific literature and the like can be freely copied for patent prosecution, for instance for the purpose of showing that the invention subject to a patent is not new or is sufficiently disclosed. --Edcolins (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I support the current tile as per Edcolins' rationale. Veverve (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Delete section re use of non-patent literature in patent prosecution

Aside from the tenuous connection of involving both copyright and patent, this section is completely unrelated to the rest of the article (which concerns whether or not patents can be patented).

I suggest that it be deleted and content be moved to either fair use, patent prosecution, or both. Before deleting, I thought I would ask for comments from anyone believes two topics covered in article belong together. --Federalist51 (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Similar copyright questions arise in relation to the content of patents and to the use of non-patent literature in patent prosecution. Thus, I would prefer keeping and expanding the last section of the article. The two questions are not completely unrelated in my opinion, although I have no strong feelings about it. --Edcolins (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Coming back to this two years later. If you are still around, could you explain how you believe the issues to be related? One involves whether patent itself is subject to copyright. The other has to do with whether copying scientific articles for purpose of a patent prosecution is fair use. Federalist51 (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

They both relate to the application of copyright law in the context of patent prosecution. This being said, I have no strong feeling about this. If you prefer to split the article, I am fine with that. --Edcolins (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Not really. The article topic is whether the patent itself is subject to copyright. Really has nothing to do with patent prosecution (except incidentally, I suppose to the extent that patents are copied as part of the prosecution process). The section we're discussing deals with the question (now resolved by the courts) of whether its ok to copy a copyrighted work in connection with patent prosecution. I also don't think this merits its own article. This was a a creative theory asserted by some publishers in copyright litigation, and the theory has now been rejected. If I'm not mistaken, basis for these holdings was fair use. Maybe move this to fair use article? Federalist51 (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Copyright on the content of patents and in the context of patent prosecution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140925123901/http://copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium-full.pdf to http://copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium-full.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Every USPTO guideline related to patents and copyright

While doing my research for c:Template talk:PD-US-patent, I have found what I believe is all that is related to copyright and patents concerning the USPTO guidelines:

• The USPTO website states: "Subject to limited exceptions reflected in 37 CFR 1.71(d) & (e) and 1.84(s), the text and drawings of a patent are typically not subject to copyright restrictions" (emphasis added)
• 37 CFR 1.71(d) & (e) and 37 CFR 1.84(s)
• MPEP § 608.01(e) & (w) and MPEP § 1512

Veverve (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Academic articles and blogs on the topic (USPTO)

I have found:

• This article by Law Prof. Dennis Crouch on his blog. It states US patents are not copyrighted.
• Dean Alderucci, "Copyright Protection for Patents: Some Surprising Implications for Artificial Intelligencefor Artificial Intelligence", West Virginia Law Review. It states US patents are copyrighted (p. 812):

  However, since a notice is not required to obtain copyright protection in a work, the mere lack of a notice per se need not imply the grant of any license. Another important caveat to the above analysis of the PTO's copyright notice regulation is that the PTO does not have substantive rulemaking authority, unlike most other federal agencies. That is, the PTO cannot promulgate any regulations that affect any rights or obligations. The broadest of the PTO's rulemaking powers authorizes the promulgation of regulations directed only to "the conduct of proceedings in the PTO." Therefore, the PTO's regulations relating to copyright notices in patent documents are merely procedural. These regulations permit the applicant to include the notice provided the notice is in the form dictated by the regulations. The regulations cannot alter any copyright or other substantive rights of the patent applicant or of any person. Failure to include the copyright authorization specified by the PTO cannot allow the PTO to deny any copyright protection to the applicant. Similarly, the mere inclusion of the required notice in a patent application cannot in any way grant an applicant additional copyright protection they would not otherwise be entitled to receive.

• This article by Brian Kindsvater on his blog. He states US patents are necessarily not copyrighted.

Please do not hesitate to add to this list any RS you believe is relevant to the conversation! Veverve (talk) 12:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)