本件特許発明 (Honken Tokkyo Hatsumei)

[Cary Strunk]

Greetings:

Can anyone out there please tell me an efficient (yet still acceptably
mellifluent) way to translate the 「本件」in 「本件特許発明」? In my line of work,
I run into 「本件」 quite a bit, and whatever workaround I come up with
invariably turns out to be unwieldy.

An example is below.

本件特許発明４は、本件特許発明１の従属項であり、.....

For the above, I wouldn't/don't want to write "Present Patented
Invention 4 is a dependent item of Present Patented Invention 1,
and..."

I do not care for "current" or "the relevant" as translations for 「本件」
either.

Any suggestions?

Thanks in advance. Much appreciated.

Regards,

Cary Strunk

[Richard Thieme]

"this"?

Frequently these expressions, 本件、当該、本官、本職等 would be expressed in
English with a definite or indefinite article, or by a pronoun.

Another example is when the 本 is used before a proper noun phrase in the
same sense as when we in English would capitalize the expression.

Regards,

Richard Thieme

[Cary Strunk]

Mr. Thieme:

Thanks for the reply.

Yeah, I thought of using a pronoun, but it doesn't appear to me that that tactic would work if something specific (i.e. such and such patented invention 4 in the example) has to be translated. Now, if it would be kosher to write "the patented invention 4", then I have no problem using a pronoun, article, or whatever. Indeed, "the patented invention" does seem to be used quite frequently in similar documents written by native English speakers.

We shall see...

Thanks again for taking the time to reply.

Best,

Cary Strunk

[Jeremiah Bourque]

This may not be an exact fit for your case - in fact, I'm fairly sure
it's not - but recently, I came across this sort of issue for the first
time, translating a reference to a patent in the midst of other work.
There were two phrases I decided were workable in separate circumstances
(and wording) in this case... but I was very much not portraying myself
as a patent expert for this work. Having said that....

I formed the phrases, "the patent concerned" and "the patent at issue".
They worked, because this was referring to a patent (and only in
brackets, referring to the exact patent by number), but my concern was
simply making it "sound right", that is, like a phrase a lawyer might
use in passing. Again, that's without expertise. Were I translating this
every day I would put in special effort to find my own solution that I
could live with.

In that light, best luck to you, and I'm very interested in what others
have come up with.
- Jeremiah Bourque

[Uwe Hirayama]

Hello Cary,

> Can anyone out there please tell me an efficient (yet still acceptably
> mellifluent) way to translate the 「本件」in 「本件特許発明」? In my line of work,

I think this depends on the situation and the context. If my
client needs a 100% literal translation (whatever this may
be - IMHO "literal" requires at least that there has to be target
language text at places where is text in the original). So
"present" or resembling expressions need not to be that inadequate
fon 本件.

As for 本件特許発明 in 本件特許発明４は、本件特許発明１の従属項であり
there should be at least 4 inventions that are related to the actual
legal procedure (本件). So this may become something like
"the related patented invention no. 4"

As for 従属項, I think "dependent item" may be not appropriate for
従属項 which rather should be dependent claim (or does item mean also
claim in a patentese context?)

As you may know, in a patent there is at least one claim. If a patent
has more than one claim, these claims can be (1) interdependent or (2)
independent.

In (1) there is one independent claim (main claim) and at least one
claim that is dependent to this independent claim; the 従属項 can
take several forms, a typical is xyzを特徴とする請求項1記載のabc.

In (2) a patent can relate, e.g., to a product and a method to
manufacture this product, or the patent relates to a product (a1)
and a product (a2) which, e.g. have the same name but are independent
from each other.

Back to 本件.

If 本件特許発明 relates to the invention in question (the invention
that is subject, e.g., of a decision of an examiner at the JPO, this
can simply be "the patented invention" or, in other contexts, the
litigious patent(ed invention) or the patent(ed invention) in suit.

Please have in mind that I usually translate into German and that
someone who is more involved into J>E translation of patent stuff
may use other words or may have another opinion.

Just my two cents (or my mustard to the saussage, as we do rather
say here)

Uwe Hirayama
hira...@t-online.de
JP GER TRSL

[Sharni Williamson]

I agree. I think it's important for the English usage to be natural,
and I haven't found a good alternative word for 本件 so far.

> > Cary Strunk- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[mt_scratch]

Cary Strunk wrote:
> 本件特許発明４は、本件特許発明１の従属項であり、.....
>
> For the above, I wouldn't/don't want to write "Present Patented
> Invention 4 is a dependent item of Present Patented Invention 1,
> and..."
>
>
>

私はそれほど特許翻訳にのめり込んでいる訳ではありませんが、最近読んだ本では、

米国：１つの出願において発明は１件のみ(独立クレームは複数可)
日本：１つの出願に複数の発明を含めることが可能(各独立クレーム＝発明)

だそうなので、日本の特許を英語に訳して出願する場合は、その辺の考慮が
必要なのではないでしょうか？

例えば：
Invention 1, Invention 2, ...などと訳すのはまずくて、
One aspect of the present invention, another aspect of the present
invention, ...
あるいは、
The first aspect of the present invention, the second aspect of the
present invention, ...
などの表現を使用すべきだそうです。

日米の特許に詳しい方、間違っていたら訂正ねがいます。

桜内 実
M. Sakurauchi

[Uwe Hirayama]

桜内 実さん、

> だそうなので、日本の特許を英語に訳して出願する場合は、その辺の考慮が
> 必要なのではないでしょうか？
>
> 例えば：
> Invention 1, Invention 2, ...などと訳すのはまずくて、
> One aspect of the present invention, another aspect of the present
> invention, ...
> あるいは、
> The first aspect of the present invention, the second aspect of the
> present invention, ...
> などの表現を使用すべきだそうです。

This may really be the case when a JP patent application (hmm, the related
texts: claims, detailed despription, abstract) is translated in order to
use the translation for patent application in, e.g., the US.

However, when translating Japanese patent literature as documentation of
the state of the art and/or as citation (異議の根拠・証拠として) I don't
think that the aspect you mention is that important.

BR

[Cary Strunk]

@ all

Thanks all for the input. I guess I was/am just looking for a "best practice" or "cut and dried" term of the type that exist so much in reference books for this field. I just find it odd that this particular term is not covered in the sources I have consulted. I suspect that it is context sensitive, but am not quite happy about that b/c I don't want to think of translators the world over coming up with their own individual ways to say something legally related. But hey, you win some, you lose some (and if you're the Columbus Crew, you tie quite a few).

Warm regards,

Cary Strunk

[Mark Spahn]

Cary,

I, like you, am sometimes in a quandary about how to translate

本件特許発明 ABC, which is sometimes contrasted with another

invention DEF.  When referring in English to this most recently

mentioned invention DEF, what should we call it?  I would

distinguish DEF from ABC by calling DEF "this invention" and

calling ABC "the present invention", or, more fully,

"the invention of the present patent" or

"the patented invention of the present/this case". 

Other possibilities for 本件 are

"of the present case", "the present ...", "this" (when not

confusable with another "this patent"), "the subject (patent)",

"the (patent) under litigation/discussion".

See also

http://www.horsefrog.com/japanese-translator-patent/mod/glossary/view.php

which translates 本件発明 as "the invention of the present case".

-- Mark Spahn, awating advice from our patent betters

 

[mt_scratch]

Uwe Hirayamaさん

先ほどmailを送信してから、OPが言及しているのは出願ファイルではない
かもしれないと気付きました。（しかし訂正メールも格好悪いのでそのまま）

桜内　実
M. Sakurauchi

[Cary Strunk]

@Mark Spahn:

If you think this one was a quandary, you should see the question I'm considering posting...let me know if you think I should pull the trigger.

Warm regards,

Cary Strunk

[Mark Spahn]

Cary, If by "pull the trigger" you mean go ahead and post

your patent-terminology questions, I say, Shoot away!

There's probably a lot of overlap between your questions

and mine. -- Mark Spahn

[Friedemann Horn]

2009/5/12 Cary Strunk <cary....@gmail.com>:

> An example is below.
>
> 本件特許発明４は、本件特許発明１の従属項であり、.....
>
> For the above, I wouldn't/don't want to write "Present Patented
> Invention 4 is a dependent item of Present Patented Invention 1,
> and..."

You know this already, but what this really wants to say is this:
"Claim 4 is a dependent claim of claim 1."

本件 is only used to disambiguate the sentence and clarify that
we are indeed talking about the claims of the patent or application
in question and not of those of the prior art or something else.
(Note that the sentence wouldn't work without 「本件」 in Japanese,
or at least it sounds much better with 「本件」 in Japanese.)

In English, such a disambiguation can be accomplished by writing
"Claim 4 of the present application is a dependent claim of claim 1."
or something similar.

I am not sure about "Patented Invention". This might be correct if
「特許発明」 is shorthand for 「特許された発明」. I'm not sure if it is.
I think it could also mean "invention/claim of the present patent
application." As long as no patent is granted on the application,
there is no "patented invention", and in this case "patented invention"
would not be an entirely correct translation.

As for invention vs. claim, I believe that there is a subtle difference
between "invention" and 発明. What is referred to as "claims"
in English is often called 発明 in Japanese. Mr. Sakurauchi has
already hinted　that it is somtimes not desirable to speak of multiple
inventions in an application to be filed in the US or in Europe.
I don't think that "Invention 4" or the like is necessarily wrong, but
they are probably talking about the claims here. 「従属項」 seems to be
shorthand for 「従属請求項」.

Friedemann Horn
www.horn-uchida.jp

[Marc Adler]

2009/5/12 Cary Strunk <cary....@gmail.com>

Can anyone out there please tell me an efficient (yet still acceptably
mellifluent) way to translate the 「本件」in 「本件特許発明」? In my line of work,
I run into 「本件」 quite a bit, and whatever workaround I come up with
invariably turns out to be unwieldy.

An example is below.

本件特許発明４は、本件特許発明１の従属項であり、.....

For the above, I wouldn't/don't want to write "Present Patented
Invention 4 is a dependent item of Present Patented Invention 1,
and..."

Chiming in late, but the correct translation depends on what you're translating.

Also, note that here, it's the claims that are dependent on each other, not "inventions." You can refer to the "invention set forth in claim 4," but I've never seen "invention 4." Maybe "the fourth invention," but unless you tell us what exactly you're translating, no one can really tell you, I think.

--
Marc Adler
www.adlerpacific.com
nirebloga.wordpress.com
mudawwanatii.wordpress.com
blogsheli.wordpress.com

[Marc Adler]

2009/5/12 Friedemann Horn <friedem...@gmail.com>

 

in English is often called 発明 in Japanese. Mr. Sakurauchi has
already hinted　that it is somtimes not desirable to speak of multiple
inventions in an application to be filed in the US or in Europe.

WIPO opinions sometimes distinguish multiple inventions if the claims fail to make the case for unity of invention.

[Friedemann Horn]

2009/5/12 Marc Adler <marc....@gmail.com>:

> 2009/5/12 Friedemann Horn <friedem...@gmail.com>
>
>>
>> in English is often called 発明 in Japanese. Mr. Sakurauchi has
>> already hinted　that it is somtimes not desirable to speak of multiple
>> inventions in an application to be filed in the US or in Europe.
>
> WIPO opinions sometimes distinguish multiple inventions if the claims fail
> to make the case for unity of invention.

Yes. And in that case the applicant needs to pay another search fee
to have the additional inventions searched. This is expensive and
therefore undesirable.

Friedemann Horn
www.horn-uchida.jp

[Marc Adler]

2009/5/12 Friedemann Horn <friedem...@gmail.com>

 

Yes. And in that case the applicant needs to pay another search fee
to have the additional inventions searched. This is expensive and
therefore undesirable.

Right. I was just saying that we need to know what it is that Cary is translating before anyone can give him a solid answer.

[Cary Strunk]

Mr. Adler and Mr. Horn both make solid points. What I am translating is a 「審理事件答弁書」

Best,

Cary Strunk

[Cary Strunk]

Just in case anyone's interested...

Well, I asked the patent attorney who assigned the job to me and was told that a patent has been issued, so I am in fact dealing with individual patented inventions, each with its own number (patented invention 1, patented invention 2, etc.), rather than claims. ...so now I have to figure out a way to graft the 「本件」 on each time. Ah well, live and learn.

Warm regards,

Cary Strunk

[Richard Thieme]

That is what I thought. If they are defined somewhere in the document, then
you can probably use that definition to refer to them as capitalized proper
nouns, which is how we would do it in English, that is the 本件 is a marker
which we would indicate as a capitalized term.

Patented Invention 1
Patented Invention 2

etc., etc.,

Please take this suggestion with a grain of salt, as I don't do patents.

Regards,

Richard Thieme