KudoZ home » English to Polish » Law: Contract(s)

inherent disclosure

Polish translation: ujawnienie pośrednie

Advertisement

Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs
(or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW)
English term or phrase:inherent disclosure
Polish translation:ujawnienie pośrednie
Entered by: Polangmar
Options:
- Contribute to this entry
- Include in personal glossary

15:28 Mar 16, 2008
English to Polish translations [PRO]
Law/Patents - Law: Contract(s)
English term or phrase: inherent disclosure
Zdanie z "Confidential Disclosure Agreement": **Inherent disclosure** of ideas, concepts, know-how or techniques contained in Discloser's Information by Recipient in the use, distribution, or marketing of any product or service shall not be deemed to be in violation of Recipient's obligations under Section 1.0 above
Karolina Ojrzynska-Stasiak
Poland
Local time: 02:14
ujawnienie pośrednie, ujawnienie domyślne
Explanation:
Lub:
- ujawnienie niebezpośrednie
- ujawnienie implicytne
- ujawnienie inherentne

No anticipation of a patent by "inherent disclosure" in Canada

In a case closely watched on both sides of the border, the Federal Court of Canada (the trial level) has invalidated Calgon Corporation's patent for its water treatment process, on the basis of anticipation by prior public disclosure. However, in contrast with the parallel litigation in the United States, the Court stated that a patent cannot be anticipated by an "inherent disclosure," but only by an "enabling disclosure."

The patent described and claimed a method for treating the parasite Cryptosporidium ("Crypto") by irradiation with UV light at a lower-than-normal intensity. The inventors described the invention as being based on the discovery that one does not have to kill the organism, but only make it incapable of reproducing. The court based its result on prior public disclosures that drinking water been treated with UV light within the claimed range coupled with test results and other disclosures that this would likely have been effective to treat Crypto. However, one disclosure which was not enabling was "Trout Lake", in which the only disclosure was that contaminated water had been treated by UV within the claimed range but there was no disclosure at the time that this would have been effective against Crypto. In contrast, a similar disclosure was considered an anticipation by the American court.

The court compared a recent American decision involving the same patent (Wedeco UV Technologies, Inc v. Calgon Carbon Corporation U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48657), which found the patent invalid by "inherent anticipation," on the basis of only a partial record of the evidence before the Canadian court. According to this test, a patent may be "inherently" anticipated by a prior art disclosure that omits an element of the claimed invention, if the missing element is necessarily or inherently present and the missing element is the "natural result" flowing from application of the reference.

In contrast, the law in Canada is that a patent is anticipated only by a prior enabling disclosure of the invention. A prior use, even if public, would only anticipate a patent if it also disclosed sufficient information to enable others to practice the invention. It is not necessary that the prior disclosure has taught how the invention works, but it must have been such that a person following the disclosed process would have automatically infringed the patent. Perhaps the Calgon patent would have been valid if the prior disclosures had only disclosed use of the claimed UV intensity, but not that this would treat Crypto contamination: a person following such a teaching would not necessarily have used the treatment to treat Crypto, since there would not have been any teaching to do so.
http://tinyurl.com/26uotk

The Federal Circuit stated that since inherency may anticipate as effectively as does an express disclosure, the inherent disclosure can be of the entire claimed subject matter, not just of a single feature of the claimed subject matter. The extent of the inherent disclosure does not limit its anticipatory effect.
http://tinyurl.com/yqmp8t
Selected response from:

Polangmar
Poland
Local time: 02:14
Grading comment
Tak chyba będzie najlepiej w moim kontekście, dziękuję!
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer

Advertisement


Summary of answers provided
4wewnętrzne ujawnienieMarek Daroszewski (MrMarDar)
4ujawnienie w związku zZofia Wislocka
4 -1ujawnienie pośrednie, ujawnienie domyślnePolangmar


  

Answers


7 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
wewnętrzne ujawnienie


Explanation:
czyli w ramach firmy

Marek Daroszewski (MrMarDar)
Local time: 02:14
Works in field
Native speaker of: Native in PolishPolish
PRO pts in category: 514

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Roman Kozierkiewicz
20 mins
  -> dzięki

disagree  Polangmar: 1. Nie mogę znaleźć takiego znaczenia w sieci. 2. Wynikałoby z tego, że istnieją rzeczy tak tajne, że firma nie może ich ujawniać nawet sama przed sobą.:) || Odp. 1. ??? Odp. 2. Czyli "spalić przed przeczytaniem"?;)
8 hrs
  -> 1. nie mój problem; 2. przecież taka jest nagminna praktyka
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

6 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
inherent disclosure ( w tym kontekscie)
ujawnienie w związku z


Explanation:
Inherent disclosure** of ideas, concepts, know-how or techniques contained in Discloser's Information by Recipient in the use, distribution, or marketing of any product or service shall not be deemed to be ..
rozumiem to tak: ujawnienie przez Odbiorcę pomyslow, koncepcji,.... zawartych w ... , _w związku z uzytkowaniem dystrybucją lub marketingiem jakiegokolwiek produktu lub uslugi, nie bedzie uznawane za ..

Zofia Wislocka
Local time: 02:14
Works in field
Native speaker of: Polish
PRO pts in category: 47

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
neutral  Polangmar: Ujawnienie w związku z użytkowaniem itd. może też być bezpośrednie (wyraźne, dokonane wprost:). || No właśnie nie, a to stanowi sedno sprawy.:)
1 hr
  -> ??? nie rozumiem... ja cos pisalam o posrednim ?
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

8 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): -1
ujawnienie pośrednie, ujawnienie domyślne


Explanation:
Lub:
- ujawnienie niebezpośrednie
- ujawnienie implicytne
- ujawnienie inherentne

No anticipation of a patent by "inherent disclosure" in Canada

In a case closely watched on both sides of the border, the Federal Court of Canada (the trial level) has invalidated Calgon Corporation's patent for its water treatment process, on the basis of anticipation by prior public disclosure. However, in contrast with the parallel litigation in the United States, the Court stated that a patent cannot be anticipated by an "inherent disclosure," but only by an "enabling disclosure."

The patent described and claimed a method for treating the parasite Cryptosporidium ("Crypto") by irradiation with UV light at a lower-than-normal intensity. The inventors described the invention as being based on the discovery that one does not have to kill the organism, but only make it incapable of reproducing. The court based its result on prior public disclosures that drinking water been treated with UV light within the claimed range coupled with test results and other disclosures that this would likely have been effective to treat Crypto. However, one disclosure which was not enabling was "Trout Lake", in which the only disclosure was that contaminated water had been treated by UV within the claimed range but there was no disclosure at the time that this would have been effective against Crypto. In contrast, a similar disclosure was considered an anticipation by the American court.

The court compared a recent American decision involving the same patent (Wedeco UV Technologies, Inc v. Calgon Carbon Corporation U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48657), which found the patent invalid by "inherent anticipation," on the basis of only a partial record of the evidence before the Canadian court. According to this test, a patent may be "inherently" anticipated by a prior art disclosure that omits an element of the claimed invention, if the missing element is necessarily or inherently present and the missing element is the "natural result" flowing from application of the reference.

In contrast, the law in Canada is that a patent is anticipated only by a prior enabling disclosure of the invention. A prior use, even if public, would only anticipate a patent if it also disclosed sufficient information to enable others to practice the invention. It is not necessary that the prior disclosure has taught how the invention works, but it must have been such that a person following the disclosed process would have automatically infringed the patent. Perhaps the Calgon patent would have been valid if the prior disclosures had only disclosed use of the claimed UV intensity, but not that this would treat Crypto contamination: a person following such a teaching would not necessarily have used the treatment to treat Crypto, since there would not have been any teaching to do so.
http://tinyurl.com/26uotk

The Federal Circuit stated that since inherency may anticipate as effectively as does an express disclosure, the inherent disclosure can be of the entire claimed subject matter, not just of a single feature of the claimed subject matter. The extent of the inherent disclosure does not limit its anticipatory effect.
http://tinyurl.com/yqmp8t

Polangmar
Poland
Local time: 02:14
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in PolishPolish
PRO pts in category: 2898
Grading comment
Tak chyba będzie najlepiej w moim kontekście, dziękuję!

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
disagree  Zofia Wislocka: slownik: inherent: nieodlaczny = imo, pozostający w zwiazku z :) // oto wyjasnienie mojego rozumowania. Slownik jednak jest autorytetem. Z disagree nie mam problemu.. :) napieraj. Jestem przekonana, ze Inherent nie znaczy posrednie, i tyle. Happy E!
2 days14 hrs
  -> Słownik nie jest alfą i omegą (ja, oczywiście, też nie, ale... tłumaczenie musi pasować do kontekstu:)). BTW, czy ja też powinienem dać "disagree" do Twojej odpowiedzi, bo słownik nie podaje, że "inherent" znaczy "w związku z"?:)
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)




Return to KudoZ list


Changes made by editors
Sep 17, 2010 - Changes made by Polangmar:
Edited KOG entry<a href="/profile/75976">Karolina Ojrzynska-Stasiak's</a> old entry - "inherent disclosure" » "ujawnienie pośrednie"


KudoZ™ translation help
The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.



See also:



Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search