German: AbzweigungsanmeldungEnglish translation: derivation 
KudoZ The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators ... More  |
|
German to English translations [PRO]
Law/Patents - Law: Patents, Trademarks, Copyright | | German term or phrase: Abzweigungsanmeldung | | XXX wird in Absprache mit und auf Aufforderung durch YYY die nationalen/regionalen Phasen der VERTRAGSSCHUTZRECHTE einleiten, sowie auf den VERTRAGSSCHUTZRECHTEN basierende Ausscheidungs- und/oder **Abzweigungsanmeldungen** einreichen bzw. weiter betreiben. |
| | Clarification request(s) and responseBrie Vernier: 6:49pm Aug 2, 2006: Um welches Land geht es hier, Damian?
Damian Howlett: 7:20pm Aug 2, 2006: Hi Brie, es handelt sich um einen österreichischen Vertragstext.
|
|
| | derivation | Explanation:
This is what Uexküll WB der Patent- und Markenpraxis calls it. As you say it is Austria, I presume a utility model is meant (rather than, say, a continuation-in-part). You may want to call it "derivation of a utility model application", but simply "derivation" seems to be okay, too. See, e.g.
http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org/docs/docs.EN/invencionesTecnicas...
"In almost all national utility model systems, certain mechanisms connect the utility model with the patent. These mechanisms exist to prevent mistakes on the part of the inventor in applying for adequate protection: there will often be a way to transform a patent application into a utility model application and vice versa. In other cases, these mechanisms prevent the invention from being deprived of protection when the inventor does not have a clear idea of the invention's level of inventiveness. Thus, inventors are allowed to apply simultaneously for a patent and a utility model for the same invention, the registration of the utility being granted only if the patent application fails for want of an inventive step. Finally, in other cases, there is an attempt to offer the inventor full protection for the invention by obtaining a utility model registration while the patent application is pending (which, as we have said, usually takes a couple of years). This is the case of the so-called internal priority (Germany, Austria, ...) or derivation (Germany, Austria, ...)."
And http://www.european-patent-office.org/legal/national/html/en...
As regards the legal device known as "derivation" ("Abzweigung") of an application for a utility model from an EP application, see OJ EPO 1987, 175.
Just as an aside, the (German) patent attorneys I used to work for always called it "branching off a utility model", for which you can also find some googles, but I never felt entirely comfortable with it.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 hrs (2006-08-02 19:54:02 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
I see Kim already posted the EPO reference ... sorry about that. But this has nothing to do with "disclosure". They're talking about patent applications that have reached a point at which it is uncertain what protection is going to be granted, if any at all. To salvage what can be salvaged, applicants may choose to file a divisional application (Ausscheidungsanmeldung) or "derive"/"branch off" a utility model application, for the reasons explained at the Austrian Patent Office website. This is (just slightly) different than if the applicant had filed a utility model application right from the start. |
| Selected response from:
 Brie Vernier
Germany
| Note from asker to answererThanks, Brie. I chose your answer because of the detail you supplied. Thanks to all others, too.
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer |
|
8 mins confidence:   peer agreement (net): -1 |
48 mins confidence: |
| disclosure of derivation
Explanation:
I'm not a specialist in patents and can't find a good definition of the source term, but I think this is the idea.
As regards the legal device known as "derivation" ("Abzweigung") of an application for a utility model from an EP application, see OJ EPO 1987, 175.
http://www.european-patent-office.org/legal/national/html/en...
Abzweigung von der Patentanmeldung - derivation
http://www.proz.com/kudoz/507627
While derivation will bar the issuance of a patent to the deriver, a disclosure by the deriver, absent a bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), will not bar the issuance of a patent to the party from which the subject matter was derived. In re Costello, 717 F.2d 1346, 1349, 219 USPQ 389, 390-91 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[a] prior art reference that is not a statutory bar may be overcome by two generally recognized methods": an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131, or an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 "showing that the relevant disclosure is a description of the applicant's own work"); In re Facius, 408 F.2d 1396, 1407, 161 USPQ 294, 302 (CCPA 1969) (subject matter incorporated into a patent that was brought to the attention of the patentee by applicant, and hence derived by the patentee from the applicant, is available for use against applicant unless applicant had actually invented the subject matter placed in the patent). http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_213...
Ausscheidungsanmeldung - application for qualifying examination/divisional application/continuation-in-part (Romain)
http://www.proz.com/kudoz/827242
| | | Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
2 hrs confidence: peer agreement (net): +1 |
| derivation
Explanation:
This is what Uexküll WB der Patent- und Markenpraxis calls it. As you say it is Austria, I presume a utility model is meant (rather than, say, a continuation-in-part). You may want to call it "derivation of a utility model application", but simply "derivation" seems to be okay, too. See, e.g.
http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org/docs/docs.EN/invencionesTecnicas...
"In almost all national utility model systems, certain mechanisms connect the utility model with the patent. These mechanisms exist to prevent mistakes on the part of the inventor in applying for adequate protection: there will often be a way to transform a patent application into a utility model application and vice versa. In other cases, these mechanisms prevent the invention from being deprived of protection when the inventor does not have a clear idea of the invention's level of inventiveness. Thus, inventors are allowed to apply simultaneously for a patent and a utility model for the same invention, the registration of the utility being granted only if the patent application fails for want of an inventive step. Finally, in other cases, there is an attempt to offer the inventor full protection for the invention by obtaining a utility model registration while the patent application is pending (which, as we have said, usually takes a couple of years). This is the case of the so-called internal priority (Germany, Austria, ...) or derivation (Germany, Austria, ...)."
And http://www.european-patent-office.org/legal/national/html/en...
As regards the legal device known as "derivation" ("Abzweigung") of an application for a utility model from an EP application, see OJ EPO 1987, 175.
Just as an aside, the (German) patent attorneys I used to work for always called it "branching off a utility model", for which you can also find some googles, but I never felt entirely comfortable with it.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 hrs (2006-08-02 19:54:02 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
I see Kim already posted the EPO reference ... sorry about that. But this has nothing to do with "disclosure". They're talking about patent applications that have reached a point at which it is uncertain what protection is going to be granted, if any at all. To salvage what can be salvaged, applicants may choose to file a divisional application (Ausscheidungsanmeldung) or "derive"/"branch off" a utility model application, for the reasons explained at the Austrian Patent Office website. This is (just slightly) different than if the applicant had filed a utility model application right from the start.
Reference: http://www.patent.bmvit.gv.at/Home/Erfindungsschutz/Gebrauch...
| Brie Vernier
Germany
Specializes in field
Native speaker of:  English
PRO pts in category: 83
|
| Note from asker to answerer| Thanks, Brie. I chose your answer because of the detail you supplied. Thanks to all others, too. |
|
| | Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
Return to KudoZ list
| |
The translation workplace 
