Doctrine of equivalents and Prosecution history estoppel

I think that these are important concepts that should be included in any section concerning patent infringement - I was thinking, in fact, that this should be broken out into separate templates on the three major areas of IP law, since each has many important concepts. bd2412 T 20:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your message. I am not denying the significance of these concepts. Not at all. But...

"Prosecution history estoppel" is a United States-specific patent law concept and in my opinion it would make the general IP template slightly U.S. centric, i.e. not totally neutral.

"Doctrine of equivalents" is an important concept, but, as you have pointed out, what about Claim, Exhaustion of rights, First to file, First to invent, Industrial applicability, Inventive step and nonobviousness, Inventorship, Novelty, Patentable subject matter, Person having ordinary skill in the art, Prior art, Priority right, Reduction to practice, Research exemption, Term of patent, Transfer (patent), Unity of invention, Utility, Business method patent, Patent application, Software patent, European Patent Organisation, United States Patent and Trademark Office, World Intellectual Property Organization, TRIPs Agreement, Community Patent, European patent law and so on (see also See also section of patent)?

We definitely need a clear criterion for inclusion in this template. The criterion should not be complied with by too many articles, otherwise the template will become useless. I would tend to be minimalist. Specific templates should be written: ((Template:patent law)), ((Template:European patent law)) (I just created this one), ((Template:United States patent law)), ... I entirely concur with your idea of breaking out topics in specific templates. --Edcolins 21:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bryan, you are our man! Thanks for the hidden note in the template. --Edcolins 21:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should we, perhaps, have a general Template:Patent law to cover general topics and go into all patent articles, and separate Template:European patent law and Template:United States patent law which would go into articles on those subjects, in addition to the general template? I note that we have a Template:Patentability. bd2412 T 21:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wonder if there are other topics that have multiple infobox-type templates? I would worry that the page would get too busy. perhaps? Bryan 21:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMHO, the general Template:Patent law should cover general topics but should not go into all patent articles. Category:Patent law is the place to find all articles on the subject. A template on the contrary should be minimalist. Btw, there is also Template:European Patent Organisation. --Edcolins 22:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I bow to your superior involvement in patent-related articles - but I do think a template spices up an otherwise graphic-free page. bd2412 T 22:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My paper encyclopedia does not contain an image for each and every article. I do think a well-written article does not need more than the matter making it. I beg you not to add templates for all patent articles. They can be fairly disruptive. --Edcolins 22:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fret not, I was just making an observation, not a declaration of intent. I will say, however, that I favor the liberal dispensation of images and templates precisely because Wikipidia is not a paper encyclopedia. bd2412 T 22:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw the addition of the IP template to prosecution history estoppel and I was going to change it, but I didn't have the time (fighting in biopiracy). And, I do believe we've been down this road with the patent law template before. It's mighty difficult to distill what exactly ought to belong on it because of the significant variation among jurisdictions. Perhaps, we should add a link like More patent law topics... or something of the sort to the patent law topic. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 23:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So what's the consensus here? Should we go with a general IP template, or develop separate templates for patents, copyright, etc.? When I dug up the (nascent) IP template this morning and expanded it, I was thinking of the needs of someone who really doesn't know very much about IP and could benefit from an accessible list of pertinent articles. I can see the argument for separate templates - or maybe a conjoined one; patent articles might have a patent section first and then general IP links? Oh god whatta lotta work. (I'm still in a state of shock from trying to insert a U.S. Supreme Court template into a SCOTUS decision Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service) Bryan 23:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I don't think anyone disagrees that we should have more specialized templates for the three areas of IP. We can basically cut this one into three pieces for starters, but we should generally agree what will go into the individual IP templates before we do that. bd2412 T 01:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I took a stab at the patent law template: Template:Patent law. I can't think of any "higher" level to approach the patent law: 1) getting a patent, 2) elements of a patent, 3) infringement, and 4) capitalizing upon it. I'm just putting it out there. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 20:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Purpose of the template

Should be, I think, to provide a list of general (top-level) topics that an interested newcomer can explore. We really have to resist the temptation to put tons of links in this thing, or it won't be useful to people.Bryan 21:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That largely depends how it's laid out, I think. I've made some fairly monstrous templates for Template:Tort law, Template:Property law, Template:Criminal law, among others. I have done so because my experience as a law student leads me to believe that laying out the breadth of a subject in a template organized like an outline is likely to best serve the community of interest for those templates. bd2412 T 22:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think the Criminal law template is overly monstrous - it's exactly what I had in mind! I like the way you centered the article links – this allows more material to be inserted while still remaining visible.Bryan 23:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the article is getting too big. I tried pairing it down, but i know little about sui generis rights.

I think if we had a patent, copyright among other templates for those articles (sub-templates, if you will), then this template could be smaller and more useful. It was getting hard to scan this template visually, and the sub-articles weren't always very useful weed ting. --71.161.216.185 01:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Domain name

What about adding domain name to the template? Are domain names widely considered as a form of intellectual property?--Edcolins 21:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm taking domain name of the template. Domain names are not intellectual property. They are merely aliases for IP addresses. Would you rather type in http://208.80.152.2 instead of http://en.wikipedia.org? I doubt anyone would have claim that an IP address is intellectual property any more than a phone number is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.22.186 (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Moral Rights really a separate category?

I would have expected the first category to be "Copyright ... and Related Rights" with Moral Rights being a subcategory (together with Performers Rights and, perhaps, Database Rights).

I'm reluctant to make such a change without consultation though as it may be too Euro-centric. Any feelings? Tim B 12:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mask Work

Should this be described as either Layout Designs or Semiconductor Topographies? These seem more international terms - I've never heard of the term Mask Work being applied to any right other than the strictly US national one. Tim B 12:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair Use - Levels of detail

I removed "fair use" from the template on the same grounds as doctrine of equivalents etc. It's a sub-concept of copyright and specific to the US (though of course roughly equivalent concepts occur in many other jurisdictions). Looking at the discussions below about the problems of keeping boxes generic vs having to include several different boxes, is it possible to create an IP template which has only the very high level concepts (patents, copyright) always displayed, but opens up sub-menus when in a topic with a relevant Category tag? Tim B 11:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right of publicity

I feel that this is developing into a primary intellectual property right. Any thoughts? bd2412 T 03:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Colour and style update

I have updated the colour and style, the template style is quite old and the pic was not appropriate, it is the scale of justice, not IP related (necessarily).--SasiSasi (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Classification of industrial design right

In my opinion, industrial design rights are more like patents (generally requiring registration, and expiring after 20 years) than like copyrights (automatic and effectively perpetual). The United States even calls them "design patents". So why did Edcolins (talk · contribs) move them to the copyright family? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your question. I did so because, in my opinion, the classification in the template does not relate to how to register an intellectual property right and the length/term of legal protection (these aspects are highly dependent on the national jurisdiction and can even change in time as far as a particular jurisdiction is concerned), but to the substance of the right (what can be protected). Patents and utility models protect technical inventions generally characterized by an improved function or effect (technical solution to a technical problem). Industrial design rights protect the design (artistic appearance), not the technical function, and industrial design rights are therefore in their substance closer to copyright than to patents, in my opinion. --Edcolins (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So in other words, industrial design rights are a copyright-like exclusive right granted by the patent office. This suggests to me that it's more of a sui generis right, like exclusive rights in IC masks, than one of the Big Three. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 19:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are right, thanks. See "Design right is a sui generis intellectual property right in British law." [1] I have just moved the link. --Edcolins (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POV edits, here and at template:Capitalism

An editor appears to be pushing a POV both here ([2]) and in ((Capitalism)) ([3]); as well as in at least one article in which the template is transcluded ([4], [5]). I've opened a discussion at Template talk:Capitalism#Intellectual property; interested editors are invited to join that discussion. TJRC (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add Industrial espionage to this navbox as it relates to this subject. Thank you. 69.125.116.243 (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JustBerry (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Traditional safety valves

Traditional safety valves was added to this template back in 2012. As I've mentioned over on Talk:Traditional safety valves, I think the page should be blanked and redirected to Limitations and exceptions to copyright. If there's no objection to that, I'd also suggest removing it from this template. PacificWonderland (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Done. TJRC (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

115.87.236.177 (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Iambic Pentameter _{(talk / contribs)} 14:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2019Seattle

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Italic text 2001:4898:80E8:3:11D9:E9A5:7C7C:7A7B (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 11:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

171.236.76.82 (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: Nonexistent image. Please use Wikipedia:Files for upload to get the image uploaded (if possible) and, if the Image has been uploaded after that, make a new request. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]