On this page you can find simple explanations of some of the terminology used in intellectual property (particularly patent) law. Note that none of them purport to be exhaustive or precise definitions: we create and update them solely for the purpose of making our coverage of games-related IP disputes easier to understand. This does not constitute legal advice, nor is this a legal dictionary. If you are looking for definitions and explanations that will reliably serve you in mission-critical contexts, please consult a legal dictionary or other legal literature, or preferably ask an attorney.
Each term has its own anchor, meaning one can link directly to it (by adding a hash sign plus term in low caps and without spaces or symbols to the URL of the page).
A
Abstractness
Abstract ideas are not patent-eligible in the United States because 35 U.S.C. § 101 limits the scope of patent-eligible subject matter to what constitutes a “useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.”
Examples of patent-ineligible ideas are (pure) business models and game rules, but the presence of such abstract ideas does not necessarily render a patent invalid: other claim elements may still transform the abstract idea into an actual invention (such as by making a technical process particularly efficient).
The most important Supreme Court decision to draw the line between abstract ideas and patent-eligible technical inventions is Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank International.
Accused Embodiment
A patentee alleging an infringement must specify the infringed patent claim(s) and the product or service that unlawfully embodies the patented invention. In a given case it is typically either a product or a service that is targeted, so terms like “accused product” or “accused technology” are, in practice, heard more frequently than “accused embodiment.”
Added Matter
Each element of a patent claim (as well as the claimed combination of elements) must be properly disclosed in the written description, which is typically the most verbose part of a patent specification. When an application is originally filed, the patent attorney drafting it must ensure that there is support in the written description for each claim element and for the claimed combination(s). But whether that is indeed the case can give rise to subsequent debate (especially with those later accused of infringing the (meanwhile granted) patent).
What gives rise to even more frequent controversy is whether changes made to the claims
- during prosecution of the original patent application (usually in response to rejections) or
- in the drafting or prosecution of derivative patent applications
are backed up by sufficient disclosure in the patent specification. If a party challenging a patent can show that subject matter was added beyond what is disclosed in the relevant description, any claim containing such impermissibly added matter will be declared invalid and, therefore, revoked.
AIA
This acronym stands for the America Invents Act, a piece of U.S. patent legislation.
Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank International
In 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States decided this landmark case involving the question of how to draw the line between patent-eligible inventions and patent-ineligible abstract ideas (such as business models). The decision established a two-step test, which in an oversimplified form is this:
- If the invention is fundamentally about a patent-eligible concept, ineligibility is a non-issue and the patent can, at best, be invalidated on other grounds.
- If not, then there is a second bite at the apple by showing that one or more elements transform the claimed invention into something patent-eligible, such as by improving a technical process.
Since that decision, many U.S. patent cases have failed even before trial because of judges holding patents ineligible under Alice.
(link to the full text of the decision on Google Scholar)
America Invents Act
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (or shortly AIA) was signed into law in 2011 and modified U.S. patent law in certain ways. What proved to be he most impactful part was the creation of the inter partes review (IPR) proceedings Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office that made it much easier to challenge the validity of granted patents. Success rates of IPR petitions are very high, while defendants to patent infringement lawsuits are, statistically speaking, not overly successful challenging patents in U.S. courts.
The courts hearing the related infringement cases may (and often do) stay their proceedings pending the outcome of an IPR.
Anticipation
If a prior art reference already disclosed, ahead of the priority date of the relevant patent application, the claimed invention, then the latter fails to meet the novelty criterion and will therefore be rejected (or, if a patent has already been granted, it will be revoked).
Assertion
This term can have two different meanings in connection with patents and other intellectual property rights:
- It can mean that an infringement allegation is brought over that IPR.
- It can also mean an allegation (a party claiming something to be the case) made in litigation.
Asset
In connection with patents, the term “asset” refers to any tradable patent or patent application.
If a patent family has multiple members, each member constitutes an asset. The asset count is therefore, by definition, greater than or equal to the patent family count.
Assignment
Intellectual property rights are tradable assets and can be assigned to a new owner. Such assignment may at some point be recorded in the register of the relevant patent office.
C
CAFC
This is an abbreviation of the name of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. It is less common than referring to it as the Federal Circuit or by the Fed. Cir. abbreviation.
Cert Petition
This is the colloquial short form of Petition for Writ of Certiorari (a petition for Supreme Court review of a decision by a U.S. appeals court).
China National Intellectual Property Administration
Abbreviated as CNIPA. This is the patent office of the People’s Republic of China. China has become a key jurisdiction for patent enforcement.
Claim
This term can be ambiguous in connection with patent law as it may refer to a general legal claim, such as a claim (to put it simply, though inaccurately: lawsuit) for damages, or a patent claim: each patent has one or (normally) more patent claims that define the technical scope of a patent.
A third meaning that “claim” may have in the context of patents is that a party says (maintains) something is the case, especially if the verb “to claim” is used.
Claim Chart
A claim chart is a document (or part thereof) that juxtaposes the language of each element of a patent claim to an explanation of why the accused embodiment (product or service) infringes.
Claim Construction
In order to decide whether a patent claim is valid or infringed, a court or a patent office must interpret it. The term “claim construction” has nothing to do with “building”: the verb “to construe” (not to be confused for “to construct”) means “to interpret.”
In practice, a patent claim will have many elements over which there is no dispute as to what they mean, but in patent disputes it is common that the parties will disagree on one or more of those elements. For example, the alleged infringer may have an interest in a narrow construction (i.e., interpretation) so it can argue that its accused product or service falls outside the scope of that claim, while the patentee is more likely to establish an infringement if the court’s understanding of the claim is broad.
The interest of either side is exactly the opposite in the validity context, however:
The broader the claim, the more likely it is invalid based on the prior art (or even indefinite). Therefore, the party challenging the patent (typically an actually or potentially alleged infringer) will not be interested in a narrow interpretation in a validity context, while the patentee will.
This results in conflicting goals for either party. The patentee will want a patent claim to be broad enough so as to capture infringements and complicate workarounds, while the alleged infringer will ideally want it to be broad enough to be invalidated based on prior art and still narrow enough so as to be able to argue non-infringement. Those conflicting goals often lead to squeeze scenarios in patent litigation.
Claim Element
The term “claim element” is often used interchangeably with “claim limitation,” but sometimes also refers to concepts (which can just be a single word in a given case) that occur throughout the wording of a patent claim.
Claim Limitation
In order for a patent claim to be infringed, each and every one of its parts must be infringed. Each part of a claim that constitutes a particular requirement for an infringement is called a “claim limitation.” Some use the term interchangeably with “claim element.”
CNIPA
This is the abbreviation of China National Intellectual Property Administration.
Computer-Implemented Invention
A computer-implemented invention is a patent-eligible technical invention that requires a computer to be executed. This may in practice mean that the invention is embodied in a computer program (“software patent“). It may also mean that the computer is just part of a larger system, such as a computer-controlled washing machine.
Continuation Patent Application
A continuation application is one of three types of derivative patent applications. As long as a patent application is pending in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, it is possible to file a continuation application with different claims relating to the same invention. One scenario in which this happens is if the patent examiner is prepared to grant one ore more patent claims while still being unconvinced of the patentability of one or more other patent claims. In that case, the patentee may want to file a continuation application to keep pursuing the claims that are more difficult to get approved while speeding up the process for those claims that are ready to go.
Continuation-in-Part Patent Application
A continuation-in-part patent application differs from a continuation patent application in the sense that it builds on an earlier patent application but adds subject matter in the form of further disclosures in the patent description. While it cannot claim back priority to the original patent, the patentee at least avoids the problem of its own earlier patent application being held as prior art against the new application.
Copyright
The “right to copy” means that others do not have the right to copy an expressive work — such as a text (even including the one you are reading here), a picture, a song or the architecture of a building — without the creator’s authorization in the first place.
“Copyright” also has its own symbol ©, a C in a circle that is sometimes written as “(c)” when the symbol is not readily available.
Unlike patents, copyright is a type of intellectual property right that does not require examination by an office. Registration of copyrights with the United States Copyright Office (with a view to infringement litigation) is different from filing a patent application with a patent office as it does not involve an (in-depth) examination.
Covenant Not to Sue
In many ways, especially under United States case law, an agremeent not to sue someone over certain patents is a license by any other name as it provides the same freedom to operate, but this question may be viewed differently in some jurisdictions.
D
Damages
A patentee whose patent is valid and has been infringed by another party, and if no other defense by the infringer succeeds, is entitled to a damages award. Depending on the jurisdiction and the specifics of a case, the relevant period may go back up to a certain number of years (such as six years) from the filing of the infringement lawsuit, but will not beginn sooner than either on the date on which the patent was granted or when the related patent application was published.
Damages are calculated (depending on the jurisdiction, the specifics of a case and the patentee’s litigation strategy) based on
- the amount of a reasonably royalty that the infringer would have paid to the patentee
- the damages that the infringement actually caused to the patentee (such as a loss of market share),
Declaratory Judgment
Dependent Patent Claim
Derivative Patent Application
Designaround
This is another word for a workaround (a product change to avoid infringing a patent, often for the purpose of complying with a patent injunction and/or of avoiding (further) damages.
Design Right
Direct Infringement
Divisional Patent Application
Disclosure
DJ
This is the abbreviation of declaratory judgment.
DOE
This acronym standards for the Doctrine of Equivalents, a concept of patent infringement law.
Doctrine of Equivalents
E
Embodiment
An embodiment is a product or service that implements a patented invention, be it lawfully (such as by virtue of a license) or be it an act of infringement.
Enablement
Enforcement
This means that someone seeks and subsequently ensures the execution of infringement remedies, such as by collecting damages or ensuring compliance with an injunction.
European Patent Convention
This international treaty, which is not a European Union treaty but also involves countries that are not member states of the EU, harmonizes certain aspects of Euroean patent law and, above all, created and still governs the European Patent Organisation, which runs the European Patent Office.
European Patent Office
European Patent Organisation
EPC
This is the abbreviated name of the European Patent Convention, a multinational treaty on patent law that created and still governs the European Patent Organisation, which runs the European Patent Office.
EPO
This acronym stands for the European Patent Office.
EPOrg
This acronym stands for the European Patent Organisation, which runs the European Patent Office.
EPR
This acronym stands for an ex parte reexamination, performed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, of a granted U.S. patent.
Ex Parte Reexamination
F
Fed. Cir.
This is an abbreviation of Federal Circuit, which is the short-form name of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Federal Circuit
This is the short form of the name of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
FOSS
This acronym stands for Free and Open Source Software.
Free and Open Source Software
Freedom to Operate
FTO
This is the abbreviation of Freedom to Operate.
I
Indefiniteness
Independent Patent Claim
Indirect Infringement
Industrial Applicability
Infringement
Injunction
(or: Injunctive Relief)
Intellectual Property
A collective term commonly abbreviated as IP (not to be confused for Internet Protocol such as in “IP address”) and relating to the concept that individuals, companies or other entities can obtain, through registration or in some cases automatically, legal ownership of their creations. IP includes diverse, arguably even disparate, types of rights such as copyright (which protects the creative expression of authors (including authors of computer program code), composers, architects and artists), patents (
Intellectual Property Right
Inter Partes Review
Invalidity Contention
An invalidity contention is an argument as to why a patent claim should be declared invalid and revoked. The most common invalidity contentions involve one or more prior art references (PARs), arguing that a PAR anticipated the relevant patent application (i.e., rendered it non-novel as of the priority date) or that two or more PARs combined (or one or more if combined with common general knowledge) rendered non-inventive, rendered it obvious.
Inventive Step
Inventor
IPR
This acronym can be ambiguous, though it is usually clear in a given context whether it refers to an intellectual property right or an inter partes review.
ITC
This is an abbreviated name of the U.S. International Trade Commission. A more precise, but also slightly longer, abbreviation is USITC.
J
Japan Patent Office
As the name says, this government agency is the patent office of Japan.
JPO
This is the abbreviated name of the Japan Patent Office.
Jurisdiction
L
LEO
This is the abbreviation of Limited Exclusion Order.
License
Limited Exclusion Order
Literal Infringement
If a patent claim is infringed by an accused embodiment (product or service) based on the literal meaning of that claim,
N
Non-Infringement Argument
Nonobviousness
Novelty
O
Office Action
This term is typically used in connection with USPTO and means a decision (which may or may not be final, and even final agency decisions are typically appealable) in a patent prosecution proceeding.
Open Source
P
PAR
This is the abbreviation of Prior Art Reference.
Parent Application
This is a patent application from which other patent applications, such as continuation or divisional patent applications, have been derived and to which they claim back priority.
Patent
Patentability
Patent Application
Patent Attorney
Patent Claim
A patent claim defines the scope of protection of a patent. A patent typically has multiple claims. A claim is not a text that consists of multiple sentences, but an expression such as “a wireless mobile communications device characterized by that [followed by various characteristics].”
A popular adage in patent law says “the name of the game is the claim.”
Patent claims can be independent or dependent.
Patent Cooperation Treaty
Patent Description
Patent Drawing
Patent Family
Patentee
Patent holder (the owner of a patent, who need not be the inventor could be someone to whom the inventor(s) assigned the patent or someone who later acquired it.
With the exception of U.S. design patents, patents cover technical inventions.
Patent-Eligibility
Patent Examination
Patent Examiner
Patent Exhaustion
Patent Grant
Patent Infringement
Patent Office
Patent Prosecution
While the term “prosecution” is also known from criminal law and may therefore lead some people to believe that patent prosecution is tantamount to patent enforcement, it is actually the process from drafting and filing a patent application to subsequent communications with the patent examiner to the final decision on whether the application is granted.
Patent Specification
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
PCT
This acronym stands for the Patent Cooperation Treaty.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari
This is a petition asking the Supreme Court of the United States to review a decision by a lower court, in patent cases the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Only about 1% of those petitions succeed.
Post-Grant Review
Prior Art
Prior Art Reference
Priority Date
Provisional Patent Application
PTAB
This acronym stands for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
R
Rejection
Remedy
Revocation
If a patent is revoked, it is declared invalid, either retroactively or at least from the date of revocation.
S
SCOTUS
This is the abbreviated name of the Supreme Court of the United States.
SEP
This is an abbreviation of Standard-Essential Patent.
Software Patent
Squeeze
As explained in the part on claim construction, a patentee asserting a patent will want it to be broad in the infringement context, but narrow in the validity context, while the alleged infringer wants the claim to be narrow in the infringement context and broad in the invalidity part of the dispute.
A scenario in which a court looks at the parties’ claim construction arguments as well as the infringement allegations and non-infringement arguments, and finds that one of two possible constructions results in the patent being deemed invalid while the other interpretation results in a finding of non-infringement, is called a squeeze. It’s a lose-lose scenario for the patentee, and it is anything but uncommon.
Standard-Essential Patent
A standard-essential patent (SEP) is a patent that is inevitably infringed when implementing (in a product or service) an industry standard such as 5G (cellular telecommunications, WiFi or HEVC (video). SEPs are subject to special rules regarding their enforcement, and participants in standard-setting typically promise not to abuse the power those patents confer on them.
Subject Matter
Supreme Court of the United States
This is the highest court of the United States of America. Decisions in patent lawsuits are first appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, from where a losing party can try to appeal further to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) by means of a petition for writ of certiorari.
T
Trade Dress
Trademark
Trade Secret
U
Unified Patent Court
A court that is spread out over many member states of the European Union and can order remedies over EPO-granted patents with respect to any or all of those countries (its contracting states). As of January 2025, there were 18 UPC contracting states: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Sweden.
The UPC started accepting patent infringement complaints and other patent-related matters on June 1, 2023. For a transitional period of seven years (which could be extended), patentees can still opt out of the UPC and litigate their patents in the national courts of the relevant countries.
United States Copyright Office
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States International Trade Commission
United States Patent and Trademark Office
This government agency, whose name is abbreviated as USPTO, is the patent office of the United States and also in charge of trademarks.
UPC
This acronym stands for the Unified Patent Court, a court that is spread out over many member states of the European Union and can order remedies over EPO-granted patents with respect to any or all of those countries (its contracting states).
USCO
This is the abbreviation of United States Copyright Office.
USITC
This is the abbreviated name of the United States International Trade Commission. Another common abbreviation (arguably even more common) is ITC.
USPTO
This is the abbreviated name of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Utility
One of the patentability requirements under U.S. patent law. Very similar, but not identical, to the concept of industrial applicability.
Utility Patent
This term is used in the United States to distinguish technical patents from design patents.
V
Validity
Even if a patent has been granted by a patent office, its validity can still be challenged (for example, by someone defending against a patent infringement lawsuit). The examiner may have made a mistake or, which is far more common, may not have researched all of the relevant prior art. If a patent is proven (either in a patent office proceeding (post-grant review) or in a court of law) to be invalid, it will cease to exist. Depending on the jurisdiction and the type of proceeding, such revocation may take retroactive effect (meaning the patent is treated as if it had never existed in the first place) or only from the date of the invalidation decision.
To challenge the validity of a patent, a party must bring convincing invalidity contentions.
W
WIPO
This is the acronym for the World Intellectual Property Organization.
World Intellectual Property Organization
World Trade Organization
Workaround
Also: Design(-)around.
A product change to avoid infringing a patent, often for the purpose of complying with a patent injunction and/or of avoiding (further) damages. Some workarounds essentially remove an infringing feature while others provide the same, almost the same or at least an alternative functionality, yet keep clear of the scope of the patent claim(s) in question.
Written Description Requirement
WTO
This is the abbreviated name of the World Trade Organization.