Mar 28, 2003 17:18
21 yrs ago
8 viewers *
German term
Anknüpfung
German to English
Law/Patents
Can anyone help me with a translation of anknüpfen/Anknüpfung in the
following sentences? It's related to employee/employer rights to inventions.
1.Als theoretische Zeitpunkte für den Beginn der Inanspruchnahmefrist kommen
in Betracht, und zwar ungeachtet der Frage, ob sie von Gesetzes wegen als
**Anknüpfungszeitpunkt** anzusehen sind oder ob bestimmte Handhabungen als
Verzicht auf eine bestimmte Form der Erfindungsmeldung bewertet werden
könnten :
2. Da der Bundesgerichtshof die Bedeutung der Erfindungsmeldung sehr stark
betont, liegt es nahe, mit dem BGH an Förmlichkeiten **anzuknüpfen**, also
an die Benutzung eines Formulars, das sachlich-inhaltlich den Anforderungen
des § 5 ArbEG genügt
3. Dabei hat sich herausgestellt, dass eine **Anknüpfung** an den formellen
Zugang des IDF [invention disclosure form] unzutreffend wäre bzw. das Risiko
bestünde, dass eine solche formelle **Anknüpfung** den Gegebenheiten des
Einzelfalles nicht hinreichend Rechnung trägt.
I suppose in the first case it means "starting point", though I'm not sure.
I'm stumped on 2 and 3 - a "following on from" , "association with" ,
"adherence to" ??
Thanks, Kate
following sentences? It's related to employee/employer rights to inventions.
1.Als theoretische Zeitpunkte für den Beginn der Inanspruchnahmefrist kommen
in Betracht, und zwar ungeachtet der Frage, ob sie von Gesetzes wegen als
**Anknüpfungszeitpunkt** anzusehen sind oder ob bestimmte Handhabungen als
Verzicht auf eine bestimmte Form der Erfindungsmeldung bewertet werden
könnten :
2. Da der Bundesgerichtshof die Bedeutung der Erfindungsmeldung sehr stark
betont, liegt es nahe, mit dem BGH an Förmlichkeiten **anzuknüpfen**, also
an die Benutzung eines Formulars, das sachlich-inhaltlich den Anforderungen
des § 5 ArbEG genügt
3. Dabei hat sich herausgestellt, dass eine **Anknüpfung** an den formellen
Zugang des IDF [invention disclosure form] unzutreffend wäre bzw. das Risiko
bestünde, dass eine solche formelle **Anknüpfung** den Gegebenheiten des
Einzelfalles nicht hinreichend Rechnung trägt.
I suppose in the first case it means "starting point", though I'm not sure.
I'm stumped on 2 and 3 - a "following on from" , "association with" ,
"adherence to" ??
Thanks, Kate
Proposed translations
(English)
Proposed translations
1 hr
Maureen Holm, J.D., LL.M.
United States
United States
Native in English
United States
aided expression: multilingual, multiart
Native in: English 
Works in: German to English, French to English, Spanish to English, and 3 more.
Related KudoZ points
:
986
Selected
notice of claim
All of these instances in which the term is used concern the inventor's claim of right or invocation of statutory protection and the formality with which such claim or invocation must be noticed to the world. The notice of claim is relevant in the unnumbered paragraph to act to the trigger the term of pre-grant protection and/or to sort out conflicting claims of right. Below, suggestions (in abbreviated context) for rendering these paras.
1. ...irrespective of whether the manner of claiming satisfies the statutory prescription for noticing the claim, ... actions/treatments, etc.
2. . . Inasmuch as ... attaches great importance to the notice of inventor claims, it is critical that the form of notice satisfy the essential requirements of Sec. 5.
3. It has been recognized that formal notice of claim by means of the IDF may sometimes be inappropriate or may risk the omission of facts or circumstances relevant to a particular case.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-03-28 18:46:55 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Above: \"to act to the\" should be deleted, so that the phrase reads \"paragraph to trigger the term\".
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-03-29 17:27:07 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Here\'s the context where the *priority* becomes relevant. Explained here are the kinds of action which should be taken and documented to demonstrate first conception and reduction to practice. It is especially relevant to the third case where the author notes that an application sometimes omits relevant circumstances.
Note that since 1995, U.S. patent practice permits the filing of an application for a \"provisional patent.\" The amendment was undertaken to put prospective U.S. patentees on an equal footing with foreign practice.
**Interferences**
Occasionally two or more applications are filed by different inventors claiming substantially the same patentable invention. The patent can only be granted to one of them, and a proceeding known as an “interference” is instituted by the Office to determine who is the first inventor and entitled to the patent. About one percent of the applications filed become involved in an interference proceeding. Interference proceedings may also be instituted between an application and a patent already issued, provided that the patent has not been issued, nor the application been published, for more than one year prior to the filing of the conflicting application, and provided also that the conflicting application is not barred from being patentable for some other reason.
Each party to such a proceeding must submit *evidence of facts proving when the invention was made.* In view of the necessity of proving the various facts and circumstances concerning the making of the invention during an interference, inventors must be able to produce evidence to do this. *If no evidence is submitted a party is restricted to the date of filing the application as his/her earliest date.* The priority question is determined by a board of three administrative patent judges on the evidence submitted. From the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, the losing party may appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or file a civil action against the winning party in the appropriate United States district court.
The terms *“conception of the invention” and “reduction to practice”* are encountered in connection with *priority questions.* Conception of the invention refers to the completion of the devising of the means for accomplishing the result. Reduction to practice refers to the actual construction of the invention in physical form: in the case of a machine it includes the actual building of the machine, in the case of an article or composition it includes the actual making of the article or composition, in the case of a process it includes the actual carrying out of the steps of the process. Actual operation, demonstration, or testing for the intended use is also usually necessary. *The filing of a regular [i.e. non-provisional] application for patent *completely disclosing the invention* is treated as equivalent to reduction to practice.* The inventor who *proves to be the first to conceive the invention and the first to reduce it to practice will be held to be the prior inventor,* but more complicated situations cannot be stated this simply.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-03-29 17:28:38 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html#...
1. ...irrespective of whether the manner of claiming satisfies the statutory prescription for noticing the claim, ... actions/treatments, etc.
2. . . Inasmuch as ... attaches great importance to the notice of inventor claims, it is critical that the form of notice satisfy the essential requirements of Sec. 5.
3. It has been recognized that formal notice of claim by means of the IDF may sometimes be inappropriate or may risk the omission of facts or circumstances relevant to a particular case.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-03-28 18:46:55 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Above: \"to act to the\" should be deleted, so that the phrase reads \"paragraph to trigger the term\".
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-03-29 17:27:07 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Here\'s the context where the *priority* becomes relevant. Explained here are the kinds of action which should be taken and documented to demonstrate first conception and reduction to practice. It is especially relevant to the third case where the author notes that an application sometimes omits relevant circumstances.
Note that since 1995, U.S. patent practice permits the filing of an application for a \"provisional patent.\" The amendment was undertaken to put prospective U.S. patentees on an equal footing with foreign practice.
**Interferences**
Occasionally two or more applications are filed by different inventors claiming substantially the same patentable invention. The patent can only be granted to one of them, and a proceeding known as an “interference” is instituted by the Office to determine who is the first inventor and entitled to the patent. About one percent of the applications filed become involved in an interference proceeding. Interference proceedings may also be instituted between an application and a patent already issued, provided that the patent has not been issued, nor the application been published, for more than one year prior to the filing of the conflicting application, and provided also that the conflicting application is not barred from being patentable for some other reason.
Each party to such a proceeding must submit *evidence of facts proving when the invention was made.* In view of the necessity of proving the various facts and circumstances concerning the making of the invention during an interference, inventors must be able to produce evidence to do this. *If no evidence is submitted a party is restricted to the date of filing the application as his/her earliest date.* The priority question is determined by a board of three administrative patent judges on the evidence submitted. From the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, the losing party may appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or file a civil action against the winning party in the appropriate United States district court.
The terms *“conception of the invention” and “reduction to practice”* are encountered in connection with *priority questions.* Conception of the invention refers to the completion of the devising of the means for accomplishing the result. Reduction to practice refers to the actual construction of the invention in physical form: in the case of a machine it includes the actual building of the machine, in the case of an article or composition it includes the actual making of the article or composition, in the case of a process it includes the actual carrying out of the steps of the process. Actual operation, demonstration, or testing for the intended use is also usually necessary. *The filing of a regular [i.e. non-provisional] application for patent *completely disclosing the invention* is treated as equivalent to reduction to practice.* The inventor who *proves to be the first to conceive the invention and the first to reduce it to practice will be held to be the prior inventor,* but more complicated situations cannot be stated this simply.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-03-29 17:28:38 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html#...
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thank you Maureen for your help, and to everyone else who replied, especially Kim for digging out that information - if I'd managed to find that myself I wouldn't have posted in the first place. Maybe it would be fairer if I could split the points - I went for reference point for 1) and used Maureen's solutions for 2) and 3), as they fitted the context perfectly and - added bonus - I understood what they meant (I mean compared to the German).
Cheers, Kate "
7 mins
1) starting point / time of initiation 2) tie-in with 3) to form a connection with
my version of a possible solution to the triple "problem". Have fun.
+1
13 mins
point of orientation
my wording
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
gangels (X)
22 mins
|
|
danke
|
43 mins
Kim Metzger
Mexico
Mexico
Native in English
Mexico
Committed to Quality and Service
Native in: English (Variant: US)
Works in: German to English
Related KudoZ points
:
22192
linkage?
It seems to me the idea is to figure out how to “tie in” to or “harmonize” or “link up” with existing procedures for applying for a patent. I’ve done a very rough translation just to help me try to understand what’s going on, and I have to warn you that I know very little about patent law.
1. The following are theoretical dates that can be considered for the start of the period of limitation for applying for a patent irrespective of the question of whether they can legally be seen as the *Anknüpfungszeitpunkt* - *linkage date* or whether certain actions could be considered a waiver of a certain form of patent application:
2. Since the Supreme Court places a strong emphasis on the importance of applying for a patent, it would appear to be reasonable to *anknuepfen* - *link up* with the federal court’s formalities, i.e. to the use of a form that satisfies the technical requirements of § 5 ArbEG
3. It has been shown that a *Anknüpfung* - *linkage* to IDF’s formal access procedure would be inappropriate and/or that there would be the risk that such a formal *Anknüpfung* - *linkage* would not do sufficent justice to the realities of the individual case.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-03-28 21:12:25 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
According to this official EU translation, Anknüpfungspunkt is reference point. Anknüpfen as a verb is translated as associate.
Die für eine Anknüpfung an den Prioritätstag eintretende Meinung könne sich darauf stützen, daß
Artikel ...
Proponents of the priority date as reference point could rely on the argument that Article 89 EPC implicitly
referred to Article …
Dieses Bedürfnis wird durch die Tatsache verdeutlicht, daß die Frage der Anknüpfung der Sechsmonatsfrist
des Artikels 55 (1) EPÜ in einer Reihe von Entscheidungen offengelassen wurde
fact that the question of the reference point for the six-month period under Article 55(1) EPC has been left open
2.3 Der Wille des Gesetzgebers Es kann auch nicht angenommen werden, daß der Anknüpfungspunkt
in Artikel 55 EPÜ versehentlich gewählt worden ist .... zwischen den drei Zeitpunkten Prioritätstag,
Anmeldetag und Einreichung der Anmeldung als verschiedenen möglichen Anknüpfungspunkten unterscheidet. Offenbarungen bewußt. Er hat nämlich diesen Zeitpunkt auch als Anknüpfungspunkt für die Erfüllung der Formerfordernisse zur Geltendmachung des Ausstellungsschutzes herangezogen.
2.3 The intention of the legislator It cannot be assumed either that the reference point in Article 55 EPC was
chosen by mistake, with consequences which run counter to the intentions of the legislator. Apart
from anything else, the legislator, as shown above, makes a deliberate distinction elsewhere in the Convention between priority date, date of filing and filing of the application as three different possible reference points. Specifically in the context of nonprejudicial disclosures, the legislator was well aware what date was meant when referring to the filing of the application, having also used that date as the reference point for fulfillment of the formal requirements for claiming protection for inventions displayed at exhibitions …must be filed within four months of the filing of the application.
Daraus ergibt sich zweierlei: Erstens war dem Gesetzgeber des EPÜ aus Artikel 4 (4) SPÜ die Anknüpfung der Frist an die Einreichung der zu prüfenden Anmeldung
This has two implications: First, the EPC legislator was aware that Article 4(4) SPC associated the time limit with the filing of the application being examined.
http://www.european-patent-office.org/epo/pubs/oj001/02_01/0...
1. The following are theoretical dates that can be considered for the start of the period of limitation for applying for a patent irrespective of the question of whether they can legally be seen as the *Anknüpfungszeitpunkt* - *linkage date* or whether certain actions could be considered a waiver of a certain form of patent application:
2. Since the Supreme Court places a strong emphasis on the importance of applying for a patent, it would appear to be reasonable to *anknuepfen* - *link up* with the federal court’s formalities, i.e. to the use of a form that satisfies the technical requirements of § 5 ArbEG
3. It has been shown that a *Anknüpfung* - *linkage* to IDF’s formal access procedure would be inappropriate and/or that there would be the risk that such a formal *Anknüpfung* - *linkage* would not do sufficent justice to the realities of the individual case.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-03-28 21:12:25 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
According to this official EU translation, Anknüpfungspunkt is reference point. Anknüpfen as a verb is translated as associate.
Die für eine Anknüpfung an den Prioritätstag eintretende Meinung könne sich darauf stützen, daß
Artikel ...
Proponents of the priority date as reference point could rely on the argument that Article 89 EPC implicitly
referred to Article …
Dieses Bedürfnis wird durch die Tatsache verdeutlicht, daß die Frage der Anknüpfung der Sechsmonatsfrist
des Artikels 55 (1) EPÜ in einer Reihe von Entscheidungen offengelassen wurde
fact that the question of the reference point for the six-month period under Article 55(1) EPC has been left open
2.3 Der Wille des Gesetzgebers Es kann auch nicht angenommen werden, daß der Anknüpfungspunkt
in Artikel 55 EPÜ versehentlich gewählt worden ist .... zwischen den drei Zeitpunkten Prioritätstag,
Anmeldetag und Einreichung der Anmeldung als verschiedenen möglichen Anknüpfungspunkten unterscheidet. Offenbarungen bewußt. Er hat nämlich diesen Zeitpunkt auch als Anknüpfungspunkt für die Erfüllung der Formerfordernisse zur Geltendmachung des Ausstellungsschutzes herangezogen.
2.3 The intention of the legislator It cannot be assumed either that the reference point in Article 55 EPC was
chosen by mistake, with consequences which run counter to the intentions of the legislator. Apart
from anything else, the legislator, as shown above, makes a deliberate distinction elsewhere in the Convention between priority date, date of filing and filing of the application as three different possible reference points. Specifically in the context of nonprejudicial disclosures, the legislator was well aware what date was meant when referring to the filing of the application, having also used that date as the reference point for fulfillment of the formal requirements for claiming protection for inventions displayed at exhibitions …must be filed within four months of the filing of the application.
Daraus ergibt sich zweierlei: Erstens war dem Gesetzgeber des EPÜ aus Artikel 4 (4) SPÜ die Anknüpfung der Frist an die Einreichung der zu prüfenden Anmeldung
This has two implications: First, the EPC legislator was aware that Article 4(4) SPC associated the time limit with the filing of the application being examined.
http://www.european-patent-office.org/epo/pubs/oj001/02_01/0...
Peer comment(s):
| neutral |
Maureen Holm, J.D., LL.M.
: "Reference point" and "association" are, in my view, quite literal and vague, official translation notwithstanding. I've revised or retranslated many official OECD translations.
23 hrs
|
+2
47 mins
reference
Anknüpfungszeitpunkt = date of reference
Of course, 'tie-in' is possible, which leans more towards 'placing in context with'
Of course, 'tie-in' is possible, which leans more towards 'placing in context with'
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Maureen Holm, J.D., LL.M.
: Definitely closer, though not all-purpose probably for all these contexts present ed here.
23 hrs
|
| agree |
Ellen Zittinger
2 days 13 hrs
|
Something went wrong...