This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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)
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)