THE INDISPENSABLE CORRECT DESCRIPTION OF A PATENT

by Luiz Alberto Rosenstengel
03/05/2021

A patent is an unspoken agreement between the inventor and society. The first discloses his invention benefiting the whole society with new teachings that expand technical knowledge and, on the other hand, the inventor enjoys a temporal exclusivity that enables market gains and the return on investment and effort practiced during industrial creation.

A patent is an eminently technical document, as it describes an invention, but it has legal purposes, since it defines the scope of the exclusivity granted to its inventor. Article 25 of the Industrial Property Law, Law 9279/1996 (LPI), defines that “the claims must be based on the specification, characterizing the particularities of the request and defining, in a clear and precise way, the subject of protection . ”

In order to avoid legal uncertainty, it is imperative that the subject matter of the patent is clearly and precisely defined in its claims. In other words, the claim must undoubtedly explain what society is prohibited from reproducing during the period of validity of the patent.

However, since the aforementioned article requires that the claims are based on the specification, it is necessary to analyze article 24 of the same legal provision that determines: “The report must describe the object clearly and sufficiently, in order to enable its accomplishment by technician in the subject and indicate, when applicable, the best form of execution. ”

While Article 25 refers to the demands for clarity and precision of the claims, Article 24 speaks of clarity and sufficiency of the specification. Thus, a specialized professional, based only on the knowledge available in the specific technical sector and with the information described in the patent report, must be able to carry out the invention.

On the other hand, it has been verified, with greater frequency in national patent applications, especially in those coming from isolated inventors, a lack of information and data that make it possible, even for a technician in the subject, to test the invention. Often the information that is clear in the inventor's mind is not transferred adequately and sufficiently to the specification. It is not uncommon for the inventor to fill in the technical gaps in the patent application with that information that he unconsciously keeps in his memory. However, this does not meet the requirements of articles 24 and 25 of the LPI and, therefore, does not clearly and precisely define the object to be protected by the patent.

Anyone who has already dealt with drafting a patent application knows that such a task is of great difficulty, requiring from the inventor a special didactic capacity to be able to narrate, if not all, at least the essential technical characteristics of the invention, as well as their interconnections. and the operation of the invention. In addition, the inventor still needs to build a main claim where the technical characteristics common to the state of the art and those resulting from its creation are identified.

Most of the isolated inventors, and with some frequency also the institutional inventors, hope to have the possibility of complementing the information omitted in the initial patent application during the technical examination prepared by the National Institute of Industrial Property - INPI. However, this possibility is vetoed by article 32 of the LPI, which determines that only changes to the patent application will be accepted in order to (a) better clarify or define, (b) until the examination request and (c) as long as limited to the subject. initially revealed in the request . Thus, the legal order that the addition of material to the patent application is prohibited.

In order to guide the inventor, article 24 of the IPL advances, suggesting not only the description of a basic model of the invention, but also “when appropriate, the best form of execution.” Some countries they call this the legend best mode ” of the invention.

The Patent Examination Guidelines (Resolution 124/2013) suggest the inclusion of data, parameters and characteristics of the invention, as a good practice of patent writing.

In the case of product composition patents, the Patent Examination Guidelines - Block II (Resolution 169/2016) suggest the inclusion in the patent application of “qualitative or qualitative / quantitative definitions” to better define and specify the invention.

Therefore, the descriptive insufficiency is a fatal and insurmountable failure that leads to the rejection of the patent application. Thus, we only have the recommendation that all information and technical details are presented for a complete understanding of the invention by a professional in the specific technical sector.

 

by Luiz Alberto Rosenstengel - Mechanical Engineer, Partner at Leão.

22/04/2021

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AS ALLIES TO STRATEGIC CREATIVITY

Hoje, no mercado empresarial, não existe opção senão ser competitivo. Considerando os múltiplos players que se estabelecem nos mais variados segmentos, é preciso, para sobreviver, ter o melhor produto ou o melhor preço. É inegável também que, a menos que estejamos falando de mercados altamente comoditizados, a melhor opção é sempre desenvolver produtos com maior […]

Read
09/04/2021

Brazilian PTO (INPI) New Guidelines for Computer Implemented Inventions – CII: similarities and differences with the EPO CII Guidelines for Examination

The challenging computer implemented technologies are not only impacting the ICT sector, but also crossing different technological fields from mobility/mechatronics sector to healthcare and biotech sectors (involving or not Artificial Intelligence, which is also comprehended by the CII guidelines).

Read
24/09/2020

Brexit e as marcas comunitárias (EUIPO): impactos do fim do período de transição

O período de transição estipulado após a saída do Reino Unido da União Europeia encerrará em 31 de dezembro de 2020. Então, o que acontecerá com as marcas que foram registradas/depositadas perante o EUIPO (Instituto da Propriedade Intelectual da União Europeia) e, consequentemente, estendiam sua proteção para o Reino Unido? Para as marcas já registradas […]

Read
18/09/2020

Novidades importantes em marcas

O Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial – INPI publicou duas importantes disposições acerca dos processos de registros de marcas: a possibilidade de co-titularidade e a prorrogação da possibilidade de divisão dos processos para julho de 2021. . CO-TITULARIDADE DE MARCAS: a partir de agora, será possível registrar marcas em nome de mais de um titular, […]

Read
27/05/2020

OMPI lança o Wipo Proof

Informamos que a Organização Mundial da Propriedade Intelectual – OMPI, acabou de lançar um novo serviço de registro internacional dedicado à realização de prova válida (no Brasil e exterior) denominada WIPO PROOF. Trata-se de um documento oficial emitido por essa entidade, contendo data/autoria/conteúdo e que serve como prova válida para direito autoral, segredo de negócio, […]

Read
12/02/2020

INPI apresenta celeridade nos registros de software

O Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (INPI) busca cada vez mais desenvolver iniciativas e soluções voltadas à desburocratização e ao tempo de concessão de direitos de propriedade intelectual no Brasil. Com relação às proteções dos programas de computador, desde a implantação da plataforma online para requerimentos desse tipo de registro, se constata uma redução significativa […]

Read
18/12/2019

Projeto Piloto ‘Patent Prosecution Highway’ do INPI

Informamos aos nossos clientes que o Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (INPI) lançou em 1º de dezembro de 2019, um novo projeto para aceleração de patentes provenientes do exterior. Este acordo bilateral unificado já assinado entre o Brasil e Argentina, Chile, Colômbia, Costa Rica, Dinamarca, Estados Unidos, Equador, Europa, Paraguai, Peru, Reino Unido e Uruguai […]

Read
22/11/2019

Avanço no julgamento de marcas pelo INPI

Desde 2017, o Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial – INPI vem se reestruturando para reduzir o backlog do julgamento nas áreas de patentes, marcas e desenhos industriais. O combate ao backlog seguiu no ano de 2018 e, em 2019, os reflexos da reestruturação e dos investimentos se tornaram evidentes. No setor de marcas, um pedido […]

Read