19:33
i was thinking for sure there would be some mass event/ happening today. to my surprise, all is calm
Warning
Info
Warning
Info
LSDefine
Simple English definitions for legal terms
obviousness double patenting
Read a random definition: hearsay within hearsay
A quick definition of obviousness double patenting:
Obviousness double patenting is when someone tries to get a patent for an invention that is too similar to another invention they already have a patent for. This is not allowed because you can't have more than one patent for the same thing. It's like trying to get two stickers for the same picture. There are two types of double patenting: same-invention double patenting, which is when the inventions are exactly the same, and obviousness-type double patenting, which is when the inventions are very similar but have some small differences that can't be patented. If someone tries to get a double patent, their application can be rejected or their patent can be invalidated.
A more thorough explanation:
Obviousness double patenting is when an inventor tries to patent an invention that is too similar to another invention they have already patented or have a pending patent application for. This can happen in two ways:
- Statutory double patenting: This is when an inventor tries to patent the same invention twice. This is not allowed, and any double patenting can result in the invalidation of the patent claim or rejection of the patent application.
- Judicially created double patenting: This is when an inventor tries to patent an invention that is an obvious variation of another invention they have already patented or have a pending patent application for. This is also not allowed, and can result in the rejection of the patent application, limiting the term of the patent through a terminal disclaimer, or invalidating the patent.
For example, if an inventor has already patented a new type of phone case that is made of silicone, they cannot then try to patent a phone case that is made of rubber, as this is too similar and would be considered obviousness double patenting.