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.<\/p>\n
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 \u201cthe 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 <\/u>. \u201d<\/em><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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: \u201cThe report must describe the object clearly and sufficiently, in order to enable its accomplishment by technician in the subject <\/u> and indicate, when applicable, the best form of execution. \u201d<\/em><\/p>\n While Article 25 refers to the demands for clarity and precision <\/u> of the claims, Article 24 speaks of clarity and sufficiency <\/u> 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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 <\/u>. Thus, the legal order that the addition of material to the patent application is prohibited.<\/p>\n 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 \u201cwhen appropriate, the best form of execution.\u201d <\/em> Some countries they call this the legend<\/em> best <\/em> mode \u201d<\/em> of the invention.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n In the case of product composition patents, the Patent Examination Guidelines - Block II (Resolution 169\/2016) suggest the inclusion in the patent application of \u201cqualitative or qualitative \/ quantitative definitions\u201d <\/em> to better define and specify the invention.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n by Luiz Alberto Rosenstengel <\/strong> - Mechanical Engineer, Partner at Le\u00e3o. <\/em><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Uma patente \u00e9 um acordo t\u00e1cito entre o inventor e a sociedade. O primeiro divulga a sua inven\u00e7\u00e3o beneficiando toda a sociedade com novos ensinamentos que ampliam o conhecimento t\u00e9cnico e, em contrapartida, o inventor goza de uma exclusividade temporal que possibilita ganhos de mercado e o retorno do investimento e do esfor\u00e7o praticado durante […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-759","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-leao-news"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/leao.adv.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/759","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/leao.adv.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/leao.adv.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/leao.adv.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/leao.adv.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=759"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/leao.adv.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/759\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":760,"href":"https:\/\/leao.adv.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/759\/revisions\/760"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/leao.adv.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=759"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/leao.adv.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=759"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/leao.adv.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=759"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}