This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I think this article could probably be a section of a more general article entitled "patent marking". Any comments? --Edcolins 21:39, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

I have no stong feeling either way. Another idea would be to have a "Category: patent marking", depending on how many articles there will be, and how much content will be in each. Johntex 22:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Given that there will be probably only two articles in the category: patent pending and "patented", I would rather be inclined to go for the patent marking article. --Edcolins 22:34, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

A patent marking article makes sense. Lupinelawyer 01:03, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where this is published, but there is also precedent that if a product is labelled "Patent Pending" either directly or on its packaging, that once the Patent is either awarded or denied, the product labeling must be updated to remove the "Pending" and note the actual Patent number (or remove the label if the patent was not awarded). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.152.83 (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense. If you have any reference discussing this, please feel free to update the article. Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I think it would be relevant to add the following information on marking characteristics (physical/virtual) while also mentioning a scholarly paper which discusses virtual patent marking. What do you think? I have a COI with de Rassenfosse, one of the authors. (See my userpage for more information.)

Marking can be either physical, being printed on the product, or virtual, indicating a web address that provides the patent coverage of the product. ^[1] AM13prime (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 16-JUL-2023

  Clarification requested  

1. The proposed reference does not indicate on what page the information exists.
2. As the proposed reference exists in virtual as well as (presumably) hard-copy format, this can be resolved by using the |quote= parameter in the ref tag to indicate the passage of text from the source which confirms the claim statement being proposed.
3. When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the ((Edit COI)) template's answer parameter to read from |ans=y to |ans=n. Please note that prior text entered in the Edit request proposal should not be retro-actively altered. Instead, a new reply post supplying the needed information should be posted below this review. The original ((Edit COI)) template may then be altered.

Regards,  Spintendo  11:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please find below the new version, including the page numbers and quote:

Marking can be either physical, being printed on the product, or virtual, indicating a web address that provides the patent coverage of the product. ^[2] AM13prime (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I posted this reply I had not yet inserted a source from this author in another article on a similar topic. As I have since then posted that author in another article's COI edit request on a similar topic, I cannot then continue posting the subject's work in multiple articles. I would kindly ask the COI editor to reconsider the practice of requesting that this author's work be placed in multiple articles across Wikipedia. Such practices, though well-intentioned, can seem disruptive over time. Regards, ` Spintendo  16:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]