Talk:Patent prosecution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Do not merge..[edit]

I am not as familiar with how Wikipedia deals with sub topics or alternative terms, but I think this article should not be merged with patent application.

I needed to know what patent prosecution means. I wasn't sure if it refered to the application proces or the process of prosecute patent infringers. If the patent prosecution article was merged with the patent application article I doubt I would have found my answer as quickly as I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebrenner (talkcontribs)

I do not think this article should be merged. As someone who prosecutes patents, it is my opinion that a patent application is just one step in a very long process of getting a patent. Dratoff (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


Patent Prosecution is a process distinct from patent infringement litigation. Prosecution of the patent is merely the "back-and-forth" between the inventor and the USPTO, in an attempt to come to an equilibrium between allowable and non-allowable subject matter. A patent is "prosecuted" in the process of application. I beleive these terms could easily be combined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I think they should be merged - as per the above, prosecution is the process that occurs during a patent application. (don't forget, though, that's its not just the USPTO that issues patents). Kcordina Talk 14:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Plugs for firms?[edit]

Surely it should be sufficient to have references to professional bodies like CIPA (in the UK), rather than direct plugs for specific firms? -- 15:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Outdated Law[edit]

The Federal Circuit in In re Tanaka reversed the USPTO decision in Ex Parte Tanaka. The current law is the opposite of what is stated in this article. See this announcement by the USPTO: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I have indicated in the article that the information is dated. Please feel free to update the text directly. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Edcolins (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)