Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Semiotic Aspects in Patent Interpretation

  • Published:
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper discusses the semiotic dimension of patent interpretation. Patent documents are at the same time disclosure of information (by the inventors to society) and a granting of rights (by society to the inventors). The claim section expresses the granted rights. In this paper, we view the claims as signs that express the granted rights (mental concept). The semantics to interpret the signs is given by the all-elements rule, as pragmatics. The description and drawings sections of the patent document provide metapragmatics in the form of lexicon and syntax to help the understanding the claims as signs that express the granted rights. This semiotic approach for patent interpretation has important practical consequences to the correct structuring of a patent document. We highlight this contribution through an instance of a patent application in which a claim includes examples of use. Examples are not allowed in the claim text, as examples do not describe the invention, but consist of metapragmatics to better understand the invention. In this way, examples consist of metapragmatics and belong to the description section of the patent, which has the goal to facilitate the understanding of claims (by providing the necessary metapragmatics in the form of lexicon and syntax). In the patent application used to highlight our semiotics approach for patent interpretation, the examples initially presented in the claims were rephrased in the final granted patent, significantly reducing the scope of the claim.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Better named as property, instead of element. However, the name element is well established in the patent law community.

  2. Translated from Brazilian Portuguese by the authors.

  3. Translated from Spanish by the authors.

References

  1. Endicott, Timothy. 2011. Vagueness and law, 171–191., Vagueness: A Guide Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Colapietro, Vincent Michael. 1988. Peirce’s approach to the self: A semiotic perspective on human subjectivity. Albany: Suny Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ramakrishna, S., and A. Paschke. 2014. A process for knowledge transformation and knowledge representation of patent law. In RuleML 2014, vol. 8620, ed. A. Bikakis et al., 311–328., LNCS Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Wipo Patent Drafting Manual. Available from WIPO at the following page address: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/patents/867/wipo_pub_867.pdf. Accessed 21 Dec 2018.

  5. Wang, Shyh-Jen. 2008. Designing around patents: A guideline. Nature Biotechnology 26(5): 519–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Schechter, R., and J. Thomas. 2007. Principles of patent law (concise hornbook series). St. Paul MN: West Academic Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Wagner, Anne, Tracey Summerfield and Farid Samir Benavides Vanegas (eds.). 2005. Contemporary issues of the semiotics of law. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wagner, Anne, Wouter Werner, and Deborah Cao. 2007. Interpretation, law and the construction of meaning. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Eco, Umberto. 1976. A theory of semiotics, vol. 217. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Liszka, J.J. 1996. A general introduction to the semiotic of Charles Sanders Peirce. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Zeman, J. 1977. Peirce’s theory of signs. A perfusion of signs, 22–39. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Eco, Umberto. 1976. Peirce’s notion of interpretant. MLN 91(6): 1457–1472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Morris, C.W. 1938. Foundations of the theory of signs. In International encyclopedia of unified science, ed. O. Neurath, R. Carnap, and C. Morris, 77–138. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sowa, John F. 2000. Ontology, metadata, and semiotics. In International conference on conceptual structures, pp. 55–81. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

  15. Skoczeń, I. 2016. Minimal semantics and legal interpretation. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 29: 615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-015-9448-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Ninteenth printing 2008. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ogden, C.K., and I.A. Richards. 1946. The meaning of meaning. 8th ed. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ramakrishna, S. 2013. First approaches on knowledge representation of elementary (patent) pragmatics. In Proceedings of the 7th international rule challenge, the special track on human language technology and the 3rd RuleML doctoral consortium.

  19. Casanovas, Pompeu, Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel, and Jorge González-Conejero. 2017. The role of pragmatics in the web of data, 293–330., Pragmatics and Law Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Silverstein, Michael. 1993. Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. In Reflexive language, ed. J. Lucy, 33–58. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Parks, H., G. Musser, R. Burton, and W. Siebler. 2000. Mathematics in life, society, and the world. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Brainard, Thomas D. 2000. Patent claim construction: A graphic look. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society 82: 670.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Collins, Kevin Merson. 2010. Semiotics 101: Taking the printed matter doctrine seriously. Indiana Law Journal 85: 1379.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Barrie Carter and Duncan Knight (2008), updated and edited by Rachel Graf. 2014. Semiotic domains and non-textual technologies. http://etec.ctlt.ubc.ca/510wiki/Semiotic_Domains_and_Non-Textual_Technologies. Accessed 21 Dec 2018.

  25. André I. Reis, and Roner G. Fabris. 2009. What about the IP of your IP?: An introduction to intellectual property law for engineers and scientists. In Proceedings of the 22nd annual symposium on integrated circuits and system design: chip on the dunes (SBCCI ‘09). ACM, New York, Article 1, 3 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1601896.1601898.

  26. Reis, S.R.N., and Reis, A.I. 2013. How to write your first patent. In 2013 3rd Interdisciplinary engineering design education conference, Santa Clara, pp. 187–193. https://doi.org/10.1109/iedec.2013.6526785.

  27. Manzo, Edward. 2014. Patent claim interpretation—Global edition, 2014–2015 ed.. Little Falls: LegalWorks.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Corcoran, P. 2015. It is all in the claims! [IP corner]. Consumer Electronics Magazine, IEEE 4(3): 83–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Rackman, Michael I. 1978. Inventors: Protect thyself: Careful attention to the claims section will go far toward establishing patent validity and extending the scope of protection. Spectrum, IEEE 15(2): 54–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Emma, Phil. 2005. Writing the claims for a patent. IEEE Micro 25(6): 79–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Osenga, Kristen. 2006. Linguistics and patent claim construction. Rutgers Law Journal 38: 61–108.

    Google Scholar 

  32. USPTO Glossary of definitions of intellectual property terminology. Available from USPTO at the following page address: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/glossary. Accessed 21 Dec 2018.

  33. United States Code Title 35—Patents. https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_laws.pdf. Accessed 21 Dec 2018.

  34. Lei Nº 9.279, de 14 de maio de. 1996. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Leis/L9279.htm. Accessed 21 Dec 2018.

  35. Ley 24/2015, de 24 de julio, de Patentes. Jefatura del Estado « BOE » núm. 177, de 25 de julio de 2015. Referencia: BOE-A-2015-8328. https://www.boe.es/buscar/pdf/2015/BOE-A-2015-8328-consolidado.pdf. Accessed 21 Dec 2018.

  36. Carginini, L.V., and Fagundes, R.D.R. Method for encoding and/or decoding multimensional and a system comprising such method. United States Patent Application 20110083062.

  37. Carginini, L.V., and Fagundes, R.D.R. Method for encoding and/or decoding multimensional and a system comprising such method. United States Patent 8631307.

  38. Carginini, L.V., and Fagundes, R.D.R.. MÉTODO DE CODIFICAÇÃO E/OU DECODIFICAÇÃO MULTIDIMENSIONAL E SISTEMA COMPREENDENDO TAL MÉTODO. Brazilian Patent PI 0801767-0 A2.

  39. V. Franco Puntes et al. Biogas production. United States Patent Application 20140017753.

  40. V. Franco Puntes et al. Biogas production. United States Patent 9416373.

  41. Reis, S., A. Reis, J. Carrabina, and P. Casanovas. 2015. Contributions to modeling patent claims when representing patent knowledge. In AICOL-VI, vol. 10791, ed. U. Pagallo, M. Palmirani, P. Casanovas, and G. Sartor., Revised selected papers, LNAI Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Giereth, M., Koch, S., Kompatsiaris, Y., Papadopoulos, S., Pianta, E., Serafini, L., and Wanner, L. 2007. A modular framework for ontology-based representation of patent information. In Proceedings of the 2007 conference on legal knowledge and information systems: JURIX 2007: The twentieth annual conference, pp. 49–58. IOS Press.

  43. Karam, N., and Paschke, A. 2012. Patent valuation using difference in ALEN. In 25th International workshop on description logics, p. 454.

  44. Jones, A.J., and M. Sergot. 1992. Deontic logic in the representation of law: Towards a methodology. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1(1): 45–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

André Reis was supported by Brazilian funding agencies CAPES (Grant BEX 0466/15-8) and CNPq (Grant 312086/2016-4). Pompeu Casanovas was supported by Data to Decisions Cooperative Research Centre (D2D CRC, Australia); Meta-Rule of Law (DER2016-78108-P, Spain). Views expressed herein are however not necessarily representative of the views held by the funders.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Law and Technology, Faculty of Law, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

    Simone R. N. Reis & Pompeu Casanovas

  2. Institute of Informatics, UFRGS, Porto Alegre, Brazil

    Andre Reis

  3. Cephis, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain

    Jordi Carrabina

  4. La Trobe Law School, CRC D2D Research Centre, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia

    Pompeu Casanovas

Authors
  1. Simone R. N. Reis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andre Reis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jordi Carrabina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pompeu Casanovas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simone R. N. Reis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

R. N. Reis, S., Reis, A., Carrabina, J. et al. Semiotic Aspects in Patent Interpretation. Int J Semiot Law 32, 359–389 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-018-9599-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-018-9599-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation