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 B C D E F G H I
J K L M N O P Q R
S T U V W X Y Z

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.

Administrative Law Judge

An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) is a judge who is employed by a U.S. government agency. In an IP context, ALJs are typically mentioned in connection with U.S. International Trade Commission investigations.

Administrative Patent Judge

An Administrative Patent Judge (APJs) is a patent-specialized judge who, like an Administrative Law Judge, does not sit on a court of law but exercises a judicial role with in a government body. In the case of APJs, that is the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The PTAB’s primary responsibility is to conduct inter partes reviews of already granted patents.

AIA

This acronym stands for the America Invents Act, a piece of U.S. patent legislation. The AIA is particularly well known for having created the system of inter partes reviews and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that conducts them.

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)

ALJ

This is the abbreviation of Administrative Law Judge.

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).

APJ

This is the abbreviation of Administrative Patent Judge.

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.

B

Bench Ruling

If a judge (or a panel of judges) makes a decision right at the end of a trial instead of taking some time after the trial to deliberate and decide, the immediate announcement of a decision at or after the end of the trial is called a bench ruling.

Bench Trial

In the United States, almost all patent cases are put before a jury that makes the factual determinations, such as whether there is an infringement or what the amount of damages should be. If a case or a part thereof is decided by one or more judges without involving a jury, the proceedings before a judge without a jury are called a bench trial.

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.

Central Reexamination Unit

This is a division of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that handles reexaminations of already granted patents (ex parte reexamination), which can lead to the invalidation (in some jurisdictions called “revocation”) of such patents.

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 charts are used in litigation, but also outside of court such as for purposes of licensing discussions.

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.

To interpret a claim, courts and patent offices primarily focus on what the claim itself says, but to the extent that the claim language can be interpreted in more than one way, they turn to the description (treating a patent as its own dictionary), the drawings, dictionaries, (in some jurisdictions) the prosecution record (such as what the patent attorney told the examiner) and (also only in some jurisdictions) expert testimony on how a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood a claim element as of the priority date.

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.

Contempt of Court

If a person, a company or some other type of organization disobeys a court order, such as an injunction, it acts in contempt of court and can be sanctioned (penalized) for such behavior.

Contempt-of-Court Sanctions

If a party acts in contempt of court, such as by continuing to sell an infringing product in violation of an injunction, it will be sanctioned, meaning that it will be penalize. The court may impose a fine or might even order the imprisonment of executives responsible for the unlawful behavior.

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.

Contributory Infringement

This is one of two types of indirect patent infringement. Contributory infringement means that the one who makes a product does not actually infringe all claim limitations, but provides something that is mostly going to be used to do something that constitutes patent infringement.

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.

Copyright covers expression as opposed to facts or abstract concepts. That does not mean that only straightforward copying constitutes an infringement: unauthorized translations of copyrighted material may be deemed a copyright violation, too. But to give a simple example, the author of a book on how to play chess does not own the game of chess.

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.

CRU

This is the abbreviation of Central Reexamination Unit, a division of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

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 reasonable royalties that the infringer would have paid to the patentee if the parties had previously negotiated a license agreement,
• the damages that the infringement actually caused to the patentee (such as a loss of market share), or
• a disgorgement of the infringer’s profits from the infringing acts.

In U.S. patent litigation, damages are typically determined by juries.

Declaratory Judgment

A declaratory judgment lawsuit does not aim to obtain damages from or an injunction against the other party, but a declaration by the court that something is or is not the case, such as that a patent is not infringed (thereby providing legal certainty to someone potentially or actually facing an infringement allegation)

Dependent Patent Claim

A patent claim is dependent if, instead of standing on its own, it references another claim of the same patent and adds further limitations to the one it references. For example, the relevant independent claim may describe a wireless communications device with certain characteristics, and an independent claim may add the requirement that the screen be foldable.

Derivative Patent Application

There are three types of derivative patent applications, the second and third of which are more or less exclusively available in the United States:

1. divisional patent applications
2. continuation patent applications
3. continuation-in-part patent applications

Derivative patent applications build on the original description (with continuation-in-part patent applications also adding something) and, in all cases but the third, also claim back priority to the original (parent) application. Divisional applications cannot extend beyond the original (parent) 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 Patent

Design patents are a U.S.-specific legal instrument, a type of intellectual property right that protects “inventive” designs. Other jurisdictions also protect designs, but with different names and different sets of rules. For example, the European Union, Japan and Australia allow the registration of designs, and Canada has industrial designs.

In the vast majority of cases, anyone talking about U.S. patents means utility patents (i.e., technical as opposed to design patents), but some concepts of patent law apply to both categories alike.

Design Right

There are different legal instruments by which different jurisdictions protect designs. besides copyright (in images). In the United States, there are design patents. The European Union, Japan and Australia allow the registration of designs and call them “registered designs” or “design registrations,” and Canada has “industrial designs.”

Direct Infringement

An oversimplified explanation of “direct infringement” is that an accused embodiment in and of itself constitutes or commits an infringement. For example, if the patent covers a certain set of components of a medical device, a device that comes with each of those components will infringe directly by its mere existence. The opposite concept is, obviously, indirect infringement.

Divisional Patent Application

This is one of three types of derivative patent applications, and it is the one that is pretty much universally avaiable while the other two (continuation patent applications and continuation-in-part patent applications) are specific to the U.S. patent system.

A divisional patent application covers a separate invention that was disclosed in the underlying original patent application, but was not claimed (i.e., it was not made the subject of patent claims sought at the time). A common reason for this would be that the specification discussed two or more somewhat related inventions, but they were sufficiently distinguishable that they could not have been made the subject of claims of the same patent due to a requirement called “unity of the invention.”

Divisionals claim back priority to the original patent application, meaning they get the benefit of the original priority date as the disclosure of the relevant invention was made then, even though the original patent specification did not come with claims covering the invention that the applicant subsequently seeks to obtain by means of the divisional application.

Disclosure

This word can have different meanings in different contexts.

In connection with patent applications it means that an invention is made public through the patent application (which will typically be published 18 months after being filed) and explained sufficiently clearly. That is key in order to meet the written description requirement for the related patent claims, and it also plays a role if an earlier patent application (or some other type of publication) is held against a subsequent patent application as prior art.

In litigation, a disclosure means that a party that is required to provide certain information actually makes it available, and the term also refers to the content of such disclosures.

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

The first preference of a patentee suing an alleged infringer will always be to prove literal infringement, i.e., that the accused embodiment constitutes an infringement by its mere existence. As a fallback, patentees may argue that a patent is infringed on the basis of equivalence, with specific criteria for that in each jurisdiction. All leading patent jurisdictions recognize infringement by equivalents.

Double Patenting

Each patent must cover a unique invention. That doesn’t mean that two patents couldn’t have very similar subject matter, which happens often, especially within a patent family. But there must be a sufficient difference between any two patents that either one exists in its own right.

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

One key purpose of a patent specification (particularly the description and the drawings) is to enable a reasonably knowledgeable reader (formally called person having ordinary skill in the art) to put the patented invention to use.

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.

Espacenet

Espacenet is an information-rich patent search platform operated by the European Patent Office (EPO).

European Patent

The term “European patent” would literally mean any patent that is enforceable in Europe. It does not mean that it has to belong to a European person or company. Patents are territorial rights, meaning that they can only be enforced in a specific jurisdiction.

Among patent professionals, “European patent” means patents granted by the European Patent Office (EPO). Those patents are also called “bundle patents” for the following reason: once the EPO has completed its examination of a European patent application and granted a European patent, it effectively “breaks up” into national patents, such as a UK part and a German part. A more recent option for European patents is called unitary effect and covers all contracting states of the Unified Patent Court (18 countries at the time this was written (January 2025)).

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

The European Patent Office (EPO) is a patent office run by the European Patent Organisation that examines patent applications. If the EPO grants a patent, it can subsequently be registered in any of the contracting states to the European Patent Convention (of which there were 39 when this here was written in January 2025) or it can be registered as a patent with unitary effect in the entire European Union (27 countries when this here was written in January 2025). All EU member states are also contracting states of the EPO, but the EPO is not an EU institution as its contracting states also include a number (12 as of January 2025) countries that are not EU member states.

These are the EPO’s contracting states (as of January 2025): Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Montenegro, Malta, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Türkiye and the United Kingdom.

The patents granted by the EPO are called European patents.

European Patent Organisation

The European Patent Organisation (EPOrg) was created by the European Patent Convention (EPC) and runs the European Patent Office (EPO).

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.

The EPC is relevant not only to the operation of the EPO but also lays out certain principles of patent law that have been incorporated into the national patent laws of its contracting states (for a list of those countries, see the European Patent Office entry). It is also one of the statutes applied by the Unified Patent Court.

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.

EWHC

This is the abbreviated name of the High Court of Justice for England and Wales.

Ex Parte Appeal

Someone whose patent application is rejected by a patent examiner of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) can ask the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to review the decision. That is called an ex parte appeal.

Ex Parte Reexamination

An ex parte reexamination is performed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) if someone seeks the revocation of a granted U.S. patent. The challenger files its arguments, and the USPTO’s Central Reexamination Unit then analyzes whether those arguments suggest the patent should not have been granted in the first place. The patentee has the opportunity to argue why the party challenging the patent is wrong.

Expiration

Certain intellectual property rights, such as patents and copyrights, expire at a certain time. For example, a patent normally expires (provided that it is not revoked sooner and the patentee pays all renewal fees) 20 years from its priority date.

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. This appeals court was established in 1982 and hears all appeals from patent infringement cases filed anywhere in the United States. It also has jurisdiction (in the sense of authority or competence) over some other cases (such as administrative law).

The federal court system of the United States is divided into 12 regional circuits (for example, the Ninth Circuit is primarily located on the West Coast). Normally, an appeal from a court within the circuit goes to the related circuit court (for example, appeals from federal courts in California go to the Ninth Circuit), but the Federal Circuit is the 13th circuit and its jurisdiction is not regional, but nationwide for certain aspects of federal law.

If a U.S. litigation involves patent-related claims over which the Federal Cicuit has jurisdiction, but additionally involves other types of claims (such as under contract or copyright law), then any appeals will also have to be brought in the Federal Circuit.

Final Written Decision

The final written decision (FWD) is the judgment at the end of an inter parties review of a patent by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

FOSS

This acronym stands for Free and Open Source Software.

Free and Open Source Software

There are two movements with similar views on how software should be developed and licensed. One group refers to it as open source, and that is the most widely used term. Another group, on whose shoulders the open source movement stands, prefers to emphasize certain freedoms (such as the freedom to make changes to program code) and refers to it as Free Software. Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) is a term that combines both philosophies that have far more in common than divides them.

Freedom to Operate

Freedom to operate (FTO) is the term for being able to make and offer certain products and services without infringing patents (given that infringement could have severe consequences), such as by working around them, by taking a license or by virtue of patent exhaustion.

If a company performs an FTO analysis, it asks one or more experts to take a look at what it is doing or intends to do, and to check whether there are patents that might have to be worked around or licensed.

FTO

This is the abbreviation of Freedom to Operate.

FWD

This is the abbreviation of the term “final written decision” (the judgment at the end of an inter partes review of a patent by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

G

Grant

In an IP context, if an application (such as a patent application) is successful, it (and thereby the intellectual property right in question) is granted.

See patent grant.

H

High Court of Justice (for England and Wales)

This is the London-based court were UK patent cases are typically filed in the first instance. Its name is abbreviated as EWHC (England & Wales High Court).

I

Indefiniteness

One of the requirements in patent law, particularly in U.S. patent law, is that patents must “distinctly” claim an invention. Terminology with unclear boundaries would create too much legal uncertainty, which is why patent claims can be invalidated if a court concludes that the claims, viewed in light of (among other things) the description, are not sufficiently clear-cut.

Independent Patent Claim

An independent patent claim is one that stands on its own as opposed to referencing another claim. The opposite is, obviously, called dependent claim.

Indirect Infringement

If a patent claim is not infringed directly (meaning that someone does not make a product or offer a service that constitutes an infringement of each and every limitation of the relevant claim), there may still be a basis to allege an indirect infringement. In the United States, indirect infringement is subdivided into contributory infringement and induced infringement.

Induced Infringement

Induced infringement is one of two types of indirect infringement (the other being contributory infringement). A simplified explanation is that if a product does not directly infringe a patent claim, but buyers are told or at least encouraged to perform certain operations that result in a direct infringement, then the product maker may be liable for inducing infringement.

Industrial Applicability

Under the European Patent Convention (EPC), one of the patentability requirements is that the claimed invention must be useful to one or more industries. In the United States, there is a simply requirement called utility.

Infringement

Infringement is the more formal term for a violation of a patent or other intellectual property right.

A patent is infringed if one or more of its claims are infringed. A given claim is infringed if each and every of its claim limitations is implemented by the accused embodiment (a product or a service).

Injunction

An injunction is a court order that requires a defendant to stop doing something (prohibitive injunction) or to do something (specific performance). The vast majority of injunctions are of the prohibitive kind.

An injunction is one of the remedies available against the infringement (violation) of intellectual property. For example, a patent injunction is a court order that bars an infringer from continuing to infringe one or more patents (to be precise, one or more patent claims as a decision must be made for each asserted claim). The infringer faces the risk of contempt-of-court sanctions for not complying with the injunction. In order to comply, the infringer can stop selling a product (an injunction is also, and often primarily, a sales ban), work around the patent or, if available, take a license.

The formal term “injunctive relief” means “injunctive remedy” and, therefore, an injunction.

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 (covering technical inventions and in the United States potentially also designs), trademarks (typically company or product names), design rights, trade secrets and plant breeders’ rights (called plant variety rights in some jurisdictions).

Intellectual Property Right

An intellectual property right is a particular piece of intellectual property, such as a patent, trademark or other asset. Generally, intellectual property rights can be sold, licensed and enforced.

Inter Partes Review

This is a proceeding in the United States in which a third party can ask the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to declare a granted patent invalid.

A party that gets sued over a patent or has another valid reason to challenge it can file an inter partes review (IPR) petition with the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). If the PTAB sees a reasonably high likelihood that the IPR will result in the invalidation of at leat one patent claim, institutes a review. Inter partes is a Latin term that means “between the parties,” which in this case means that the party attacking the patent (the petitioner) as well the patentee defending it file their arguments with the PTAB like in a litigation, and the PTAB decides.

At the end of an IPR, the PTAB issues a final written decision (FWD).

Invalidity

The opposite of validity.

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

It is not enough for a patent application to be novel (i.e., to present something not already known in the prior art), but in order for the application to succeed, it must contribute something innovative: an inventive step that is not, for example, an obvious idea to combine two or more pre-existing concepts in a way that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have done anyway.

“Inventive step” is a common term in European patent law, while in the United States the equivalent criterion is called nonobviousness.

Inventor

A patent will name one or more inventors. The inventor is not necessarily the owner, as the patent (even at the application stage) can be assigned to somone else, such as the inventor’s (or the inventors’) employer.

IPR

This acronym can be ambiguous, though it is usually clear in a given context whether it refers to an intellectual property right or a patent review proceeding called 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.

JMOL

This is the abbreviation of Judgment as a Matter of Law.

Judgment as a Matter of Law

If a judge determines that a case normally put before a jury can have only one reasonable outcome, the court can enter a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL).

Jurisdiction

The term can have two meanings:

• It can mean a country or group of countries where a common set of laws applies (such as the United States or Japan), or
• it can also mean a court’s competence (authority) to decide a given case.

If “jurisdiction” is used with an article (“a” or “the”), it has the territorial meaning. The abstract concept of “jurisdiction” in terms of the competence to hear a case is used without an article.

In the European Union, the territorial meaning is more complex. Certain matters of law are subject to national laws of EU member states (Germany, France, Italy etc.); others are a matter of EU law; and there is the Unified Patent Court (UPC), a common patent court of many EU member states. Therefore, Germany or France is a jurisdiction; the EU is a jurisdiction for matters of EU law (such as EU competition rules), and the UPC is a jurisdiction as its case law can differ from that of its contracting states.

Jury Trial

In the United States, patent infringement cases are typically (unless resolved before trial) put before a jury. To be more precise, it is the factual determinations (such as whether patent is infringed, whether it is valid, and what the damages award should be) that are put before the jury, while the judge presiding over the litigation makes the legal decisions.

Jury members are selected from the general population: any citizen may have jury duty every once in a while. Juries render verdicts, after which the judge presiding over the litigation will enter judgment. Most of the time, judges adopt jury verdicts, but there are also other possibilities such as a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or ordering a retrial with a new jury.

If a case or a part thereof is decided by one or more judges without involving a jury, the proceedings before a judge without a jury are called a bench trial.

K

KSR v. Teleflex

This is a 2007 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the nonobviousness standard for patents. KSR v. Teleflex is still cited in many decisions on patent validity.

L

LEO

This is the abbreviation of Limited Exclusion Order (a U.S. import ban ordered by the United States International Trade Commission).

License

A license is generally a permission to do something. In an IP context, it means that a right holder (such as a patentee) grants another party the right to practice one or more patented inventions.

If patent disputes are settled, it is typically in the form of a license agreement between the patentee and the alleged infringer.

Licenses can be royalty-free, but usually a license fee (be it a one-time fee (lump sum) or an ongoing royalty) is paid in exchange for being allowed to use the licensed intellectual property rights.

License Fees

The fees paid in exchange for a license.

Limited Exclusion Order

The United States International Trade Commission (USITC, or just ITC) investigates complaints over unfair imports, which in most cases means that patent–infringing products are imported into the U.S. market. If the ITC finds that a valid patent is infringed and that no public interest considerations weigh against an import ban, it enters a limited exclusion order. In that case, patent-infringing products made by a particular company will be seized by United States Customs and Border Protection officers. The effect is similar to that of an injunction ordered by a federal court, but more limited in scope.

Literal Infringement

If a patent claim is infringed by an accused embodiment (product or service) based on the literal meaning of that claim, it is infringed literally and the patentee does not have to resort to the Doctrine of Equivalents to establish infringement.

M

Method Claim

This is one of two principal types of patent claims. It describes a method by which a certain result is achieved. If a single entity performs all steps of that method (for example, if a company operates a factory in which all of the steps of a patented manufacturing process are performed), it commits a direct infringement unless its use of the patent is lawful (such as by virtue of a license). Quite often, method claims are infringed only indirectly by providing a product or service that will result in infringement if others use it.

The other type of patent claim is a product claim (sometimes also called, depending on the context, device claim, apparatus claim, machine claim, system claim or computer program claim).

N

Non-Infringement Argument

A party facing a patent infringement lawsuit will raise various defenses, and in the vast majority of cases that will include a denial of the infringement accusations. In order to convince a court that it does not infringe, a defendant will typically advocate a claim construction (interpretation of the patent) that is too narrow to capture the defendant’s product or service, and/or argue that even under the claim construction proposed by the patentee, what the accused product or service does is not the same as what the patent claim covers. In order for a noninfringement argument to succeed, it is sufficient for a single limitation of the relevant patent claim not to be infringed.

Nonobviousness

It is not enough for a patent application to be novel (i.e., to present something not already known in the prior art), but in order for the application to succeed, it must contribute something innovative: an inventive step that is not, for example, an obvious idea to combine two or more pre-existing concepts in a way that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have done anyway.

Nonobviousness is a term that is commonly used in U.S. patent law, while the equivalent in European patent law is called an inventive step.

NPE

This is the abbreviation of Non-Practicing Entity.

Non-Practicing Entity

A term for companies that license and enforce patents but do not make products or offer services that embody (practice) the patented inventions.

Novelty

A patent application cannot succeed if it the claimed invention was, as of the priority date, already known. That would be the same as reinventing the wheel. Therefore, novelty is one of the patentability criteria. But it is not the only requirement. Even something novel is not patentable if it does not constitute patent-eligible subject matter or if it fails to meet another criterion called nonobviousness (or inventive step).

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

Open source software is computer software that can be modified, used and distributed for free. The more inclusive term is Free and Open Source Software (FOSS).

Opposition Proceeding

Within nine months of a patent grant by the European Patent Office, third parties can file an opposition in order to challenge the patent and push for its revocation. Thereafter, EPO-granted patents can still be challenged in court, be it in national court or in the Unified Patent Court.

P

PAE

This is the abbreviation of Patent Assertion Entity.

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

Patents are intellectual property rights that protect technical inventions (except that in the U.S., there are also design patents). The owner of a patent has the right to prevent third parties from practicing (implementing) the patented invention while the patent is in force.

In order to obtain a patent, an inventor (or their initial assignee, such their employer) must file a patent application with a patent office. That work is typically done by a patent attorney.

If the examiner grants the application, the patent issues. By paying annual fees, patents can be kept alive (prevented from expiring) up to its 20 years from the priority date (with some exceptions).

If someone uses a patent without authorization (a license), such conduct constitutes infringement and the patentee is entitled to remedies including damages and, if the requirements are met, an injunction.

Patentability

In order for a patent application to succeed, or for a patent to survive a subsequent invalidation attempt, it must meet all patentability criteria. That includes (but is not limited to) the claimed invention being in a patent-eligible field, novel and inventive.

Patent Application

A patent application is typically filed by a patent attorney.

The application must present a complete patent specification consisting of an abstract that summarizes the patent, one or (typically) more claims, the description and typically also drawings.

In most jurisdictions, patent applications are published within 18 months of filing, but kept confidential until then.

A patent application is typically assigned by the patent office to a patent examiner.

Patent Assertion Entity

This is a different term for Non-Practicing Entity (NPE), but with a focus on enforcement.

Patent Attorney

Patent attorneys have a combination of technical (or scientific) and legal knowledge that enables them to help clients who seek to obtain patents. Patent attorneys draft and prosecute patent applications. Sometimes their work begins even earlier and they help to identify potentially patentable inventions made by a client. They may also get involved later, such as in licensing or litigation. Depending on the jurisdiction, patent attorneys can enforce patents in court (for example, they have that right in the Unified Patent Court) or their role is to support attorneys-at-law.

During patent prosecution, patent attorneys interface with patent examiners on the side of the patent office with which the relevant application was filed.

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, the latter building on another claim by adding one or more limitations.

Patent claims can also be divided into product claims (which cover something called a device, apparatus, machine, system or computer program) and method claims.

It is possible to allege the infringement of multiple claims from the same patent in a single patent lawsuit.

Patent Cooperation Treaty

The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) was created under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), signed in 1970 and entered into effect in 1978. By now there are approximately 150 contracting states. PCT patent applications are first examined in one jurisdiction, but final decisions are made separately in each country where the patentee opts to “enter the national phase,” which means seeking a national patent there. Patents granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) are multinational, but for PCT purposes, the EPO is treated like a country (such as the United States or Japan).

PCT patent applications have numbers that begin with WO (“world”).

Patent Description

The description is typically the longest part of a patent specification. It consists if numerous paragraphs that collectively explain the invention and differentiate it from the prior art. The patent claims are more important (“the name of the game is the claim”), but the description plays a key role when trying to understand the exact meaning of a patent claim in a process called claim construction.

Patent Drawing

As the old adage goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. Patent specifications typically come with patent drawings that are explained in the description.

Patent Family

A patent family is the collection of assets (i.e., patents and patent applications) that go back to the same original patent application.

Some patent families contain patents in multiple jurisdictions, all of which go back to one original patent application (for example, a U.S. patent, a European (EPO-granted) patent and a Chinese patent).

Other patent families exist in only one jurisdiction, such as the U.S., with one common parent application and various family members being derived from it, such as divisional and/or continuation patents.

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

This term is often confused with patentability, but it is actually just a subset of it in the United States.

Patentability includes such requirements as novelty and nonobviousness (inventive step), and another such criterion is patent-eligibility, which means that the invention must be in a field of subject matter where patent protection is available (for example, if you discover a new planet, you can’t patent it) and of a sufficiently concrete nature.

In Europe, there are various exemptions from the scope of patent-eligible (there simply called “patentable”) subject matter, such as “discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods; aesthetic creations; schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers; presentations of information.” This does not mean that any invention involving anything on that list (for example, many technical patents involve mathematics) is patent-ineligible only for that reason, but there must be something more than what is excluded in order for a patent to be granted (and, later, not revoked).

Patent Examination

Patents are not obtained by merely filling out a registration form and paying fee, but patent applications are subjected to a process called patent examination, with a technically (and, to the necessary extent, legally) trained patent examiner evaluating the proposed patent specification. Not only will the examiner ensure that the claims have support in the description and that other criteria are met, but patent examiners also conduct their own prior art searches to see whether the claimed invention is truly novel and inventive.

If a patent application does not (yet) meet the requirements for a grant, it is rejected, but rejections are typically not final (not necessarily even when called final) and the applicant’s patent attorney can try to modify the patent claims in order to address the concerns raised by the examiner.

Patent Examiner

Patent examiners are the gatekeepers who decide, in the process of patent examination, whether or not a patent application is granted. They must have technical knowledge in the field in which they evaluate patents, and they are trained in patent law so they know how to apply patent law to the applications before them.

The most famous person ever to have worked as a patent examiner is Albert Einstein, who did so at the patent office of Switzerland. In the early years of the United States, there was a group of three men who decided on patent applications, and one of them was Thomas Jefferson, a founding father of the United States who became its third president.

Patent Exhaustion

Patent exhaustion is the legal doctrine (principle) according to which a patentee cannot double-dip by licensing a patent once (which may also include the sale of a product that comes with a license) and then go after other parties that incorporate a licensed product into another product, or simply use it.

In the United States, Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics was an important Supreme Court decision on patent exhaustion.

Patent Grant

If the patent examiner is convinced that the patent application in question meets all patentability requirements, they will grant the patent, meaning that the applicant is informed of the positive decision and the patent is published a little later.

Patent Infringement

An infringement is a violation of a right. Patent infringement means that someone who does not own a given patent or have a license to it (or some other basis on which to lawfully use it) is actually practicing a patented invention.

Patent Office

Most of the employees of a patent office are patent examiners. They study patent applications and decide whether to reject or grant them. Rejected patent claims can still be amended (improved). After a patent has been granted, even if sometimes within a time limit (such as nine months), it is possible to challenge patent and ask a patent office to revoke them. For that purpose, the European Patent Office (EPO) provides opposition proceedings, while The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has a Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) for ex parte reexaminations, as well as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews.

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

The patent specification is the entirety of the information that is published when a patent is granted or when a patent application reaches the stage (typically within 18 months of filing) that it is published. It consists of a title, an abstract, the description, typically also drawings, and most importantly, the claims.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is a judicial body within the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) whose Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) conduct inter partes reviews (IPRs) and post-grant reviews (PGRs) of already issued patents. It also hears ex parte appeals of rejections of patent applications.

Patent Troll

A pejoriative term for Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) that focuses on a certain type of litigation conduct that defendants find annoying and unnecessarily expensive to deal with.

PCT

This acronym stands for the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art

In order to analyze how a patent would have been understood (claim construction) or whether a claimed invention involves the inventive step that is one of the patentability requirements, patent offices and courts of law must ask themselves what level of knowledge they should base their assumptions on. For that purpose, they define an abstract Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA). For example, that could be “a wireless communications engineer with a degree in electrical engineering and at least two to three years of professional experience.”

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.

PHOSITA

This acronym is the abbreviation of “person having ordinary skill in the art.”

Post-Grant Review

Within nine months of the grant of a U.S. patent, third parties can challenge the validity of the patent through a post-grant review (PGR). Thereafter they still have other means of tackling the patent available (ex parte reexaminations and inter partes reviews), but a PGR is sometimes advantageous.

Prior Art

Prior art is every publication or comparable disclosure (such as a presentation in front of a sufficiently large number of people) that prior to the priority date of a given patent application and made information available that potentially renders the patent application meritless or an already granted patent invalid because the claimed invention was not novel as of the priority date or, even if it was novel at the time, lacked an inventive step over what was already public information.

Prior Art Reference

A prior art reference is one piece of prior art, such as an earlier patent application or a published article.

Priority Date

The priority date of a patent application (and, later, a granted patent) is often simply the filing date of a patent application, but an application can also “claim back” priority to an earlier application that it is derived from. The priority date is key to determine whether a claimed invention was novel and involved an inventive step. It is also from the priority date that the patent term (typically 20 years, provided that renewal fees are paid) is counted. That leads to conflicting goals: an older priority date means that certain publications do not count as prior art that would predate a later priority date, but it also means that the patent expires earlier.

Prior Use

The prior use defense in the patent laws of many jurisdictions allows someone to continue to practice an invention if someone else subsequently patents it.

Product Claim

This is one of the two main categories of patent claims. A product claim covers a device, apparatus, machine, system, computer program or other type of product. Someone making a product that meets the same criteria will commit direct infringement unless the use of the patented invention is authorized, such as by a license.

The other main category of patent claims is a method claim.

Provisional Patent Application

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) accepts provisional patent applications, which do not have to meet all of the formal requirements facing regular patent applications, just to secure a certain priority date. As the word “provisional” indicates, such an application is not sufficient to obtain an actual patent. Within 12 months, one has to follow up with a nonprovisional patent application.

PTAB

This acronym stands for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Q

Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics

This is a 2008 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that had an expansive effect on the scope of applicability of the doctrine of patent exhaustion.

R

Rejection

A patent examiner will grant a patent if the application is found to meet all requirements for patentability. Otherwise the examiner will communicate a rejection, which often is not final but means that the applicant has the chance to amend the patent claims.

Remedy

In the intellectual property context, a remedy is what a court orders if it finds an infringement. The two primary remedies in patent law are damages (to compensate for past infringement) and an injunction (to stop infringing sales and, if applicable, manufacturing processes).

Renewal

If patent has been granted, it can be kept alive until (normally) 20 years from the priority date, but this requires the payment of (annual) renewal fees that patent offices charge.

Revocation

If a patent is revoked, it is declared invalid, either retroactively or at least from the date of revocation.

Royalties

In connection with intellectual property, this is another term for license fees.

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

The work of computer programmers is protected by different types of intellectual property rights. Copyright protects program code, but copyright is narrow: short of outright copying, it is normally not infringed. Whether anything that is implemented in the form of software can be patented was initially unclear in some jurisdictions and ruled out in others, but that changed. In order for software-related concepts to be patented, they have to meet certain requirements. Patent professionals prefer the term computer-implemented invention, which covers not only patents on software per se but also on inventoins relating to computer-controlled devices such as modern washing machines.

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

In connection with patents, the term “subject matter” can be used in two different contexts:

• in the sense of patent-eligible subject matter, which means that an invention as a whole is made in a field in which patent protection is available, and
• in the more specific sense of an element of an invention that is mentioned in patent claims (for example, if it is mentioned only in a patent claim, but has no support in the description and the drawings, it may be deemed impermissibly added subject matter (or just “added matter”) and renders that patent claim invalid).

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.

The Supreme Court of the United States has made many important decisions relating to intellectual property rights, such as Alice v. CLS Bank (on what is actually a patent-eligible invention and not too abstract to be patented).

T

Trade Dress

This intellectual property right is available in the United States and protects the visual appearance of a product or its packaging. It is similar — but not identical — to a trademark.

Trademark

A trademark can be a company or product name (word mark) or a logo. Trademarks enjoy protection for the purpose of ensuring that buyers are not confused as to the origin of a product.

Trade Secret

A trade secret is confidential business information of competitive relevance, which can also be technical information that is relevant to a business. The most famous trade secret in the world is Coca-Cola’s Coke recipe (since the late 19th century).

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.

(link to court website)

United States Copyright Office

Copyright is obtained automatically by creating something, but for certain purposes, particularly litigation, it may have to be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO).

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

This court is commonly referred to as the Federal Circuit.

United States International Trade Commission

The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC, or just ITC) investigates complaints over unfair imports, which in most cases means that patent–infringing products are imported into the U.S. market. If the ITC finds that a valid patent is infringed and that no public interest considerations weigh against an import ban, it enters a limited exclusion order. In that case, patent-infringing products made by a particular company will be seized by United States Customs and Border Protection officers. The effect is similar to that of an injunction ordered by a federal court, but more limited in scope.

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. It examines patent applications and also offers proceedings for challenging granted patents.

(link to agency website)

Unitary Effect

If a patent granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) has unitary effect, it is enforceable with respect to all contracting states of the Unified Patent Court (UPC). As When this was written in January 2025, the UPC had 18 contracting states (all of which are member states of the European Union, but nine EU Member States were not yet UPC contracting states).

That is different from European patents (in terms of patents granted by the EPO) without unitary effect.

Unitary Patent

This term describes a European patent with unitary effect.

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 (such as an opposition proceeding or 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

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is one of 15 specialized United Nations (UN) agencies.

World Trade Organization

The World Trade Organization (WTO) is an intergovernmental (multi-country) organization in charge of trade policy and regulation. It cooperates with the United Nations (UN), but is not part of the UN. Intellectual property rights are a very important aspect of international trade relations.

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.

A simplified way to explain it is this example:

If a court says a mobile phone is infringing a patent (and potentially bans the infringing product in the form of an injuntion), it does not mean that the defendant is not allowed to make mobile phones anymore. It just means that a mobile phone with certain characteristics, such as a certain way of managing app permissions, is prohibited. The same phone with a different way of managing app permissions would still be allowed. That would be a workaround, often also called designaround.

Written Description Requirement

The claims are the most important part of a patent, but whatever is claimed must also be explained in the description. In U.S. patent law, a patent claim that does not have sufficient support for each of its elements in the description is considered to fail to meet the written description requirements. A related concept in Europe is that of added matter.

WTO

This is the abbreviated name of the World Trade Organization.