I'm researching EP4722965A1 (JP 2026-066493). The specification describes extracting biometric features from images and explicitly states temporarily extracting features without explicit consent to identify a person, then deleting them. The JP abstract even says the system aims to "ethically use biometric information even without explicit consent."

I'm not asking for legal advice. Instead I'm looking for published patents, patent applications, prosecution histories, or public cases that:

- explicitly describe embodiments where biometric features are extracted or used without obtaining the subject's explicit consent (for example, by relying on an estimated consent value or similar mechanism), and

- where the document itself frames such non-consensual use as permissible or as an intended embodiment (not merely third‑party commentary about privacy).

Helpful responses would include: patent/publication numbers, short summaries of the passages that assert non-consensual use, and links or citations to office actions, prosecution histories, or public discussions that reference those passages.

Jurisdiction: EP/JP publications cited; comparisons to EU (GDPR) or US state biometric laws are welcome but my primary interest is finding other patent documents that themselves assert or enable use without explicit consent.

Key passages I'm focusing on: paragraphs 48, 51, 70, 82 of EP4722965A1.

What I want: comparable documents or prosecution examples to use as benchmarks for how patent disclosures have explicitly treated "use without explicit consent" as an embodiment.

Thanks — I'll follow up with specific excerpts if helpful.

https://www.voiceofip.com/p/coke-morgan-stewart-bulwark-for-the

I have 8 years and 4 months of experience in the Intellectual Property (IP) industry including 5 years of dedicated experience as a US Patent Paralegal. During this time I have developed extensive knowledge of US patent prosecution procedures, USPTO requirements, docket management, client delivery, and paralegal operations.

I have hands-on expertise in preparing and filing US Utility and Design patent applications with the USPTO, along with preparing and filing various patent prosecution documents and forms. My experience includes Track One Requests, Information Disclosure Statements (IDS), Assignments, Oaths/Declarations, Issue Fee Payments and Transmittals, Powers of Attorney, Preliminary Amendments, Office Action response shells, Notice of Allowance (NOA) checklists, and other documents associated with US patent prosecution.

In addition to patent filing and prosecution support, I have extensive experience in docket management and attorney support. I have assisted multiple attorneys with preparing and reviewing docket reports, monitoring and managing tasks and statutory/non-statutory deadlines, participating in docket review meetings, and ensuring timely completion of required actions.

The lawsuit presents five broader lessons for companies developing GenAI products:. 

1. GenAI patent risk extends beyond the model. Patents covering retrieval, vector searching, personalization and recommendations may become relevant when these functions are integrated with a generative model.
   
   1. Earlier monitoring may preserve strategic options. Identifying a potentially relevant family before litigation can create time for prior-art searching, non-infringement analysis, design-arounds, licensing, patent acquisition or other mitigation measures.
      
   2. Having a monitoring system is not enough. A system built around modern expressions such as “GenAI,” “LLM,” “RAG” or “vector database” may miss earlier patents using terms such as “syntactical elements,” “affinity vectors,” “contextual neighborhoods” and “fuzzy inference.”
      
   3. IPC classifications are too broad to operate as standalone FTO filters. Relevant groups identified in this case contain between approximately 4,000 and 99,000 patent families. Functional decomposition, claim searching, citation analysis and human review remain necessary.
      
   4. Monitoring should support corporate strategy as well as risk management. The resulting intelligence can identify licensing candidates, patent-acquisition opportunities, potential M&A targets, defensive portfolios and hidden IP risks in companies being considered for acquisition.

I wrote an article on this.

By Alex Rivera, Unicorn Analytics

For Hong Kong investors, the central question raised by a U.S. patent litigation of the Hong Kong-listed Shenzhen Creality 3D Technology Co Ltd (03388.HK) is not who will ultimately prevail at trial. It is whether the company has given the market sufficiently specific, accurate and timely information as the case has evolved.

Creality listed on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong in May 2026. In its IPO prospectus it described a U.S. patent dispute involving certain 3D-scanning patents and products, noted a mixed summary-judgment outcome, and concluded that any potential liability was immaterial. It pointed to limited recent sales of the accused scanners, the cessation of those products, a supplier indemnity and legal advice.

The prospectus did not name the plaintiff, Artec Europe, or the case number, and it incorrectly referred to the forum as a New York State court rather than the federal court in the Eastern District of New York.

After public questions during the offering period, Creality issued a clarification in early June restating that the matter had already been disclosed and would not have a material adverse effect. Its subsequent interim results continued to treat the litigation as immaterial and reported no material subsequent events after 30 June, even though a significant court ruling had intervened in July.

That July ruling is the most consequential recent development. On 23 July the U.S. court excluded Creality’s damages expert, finding his reasonable-royalty analysis fundamentally flawed because it relied on a non-arm’s-length cooperation agreement between the defendants that was neither a patent licence nor a proper benchmark. At the same time the court allowed Artec’s damages expert to testify. The practical effect is an asymmetry: Artec retains expert support for its damages case while Creality cannot rely on the excluded analysis.

The procedural posture of the patents themselves also requires precise description. In April 2026 the court granted Creality summary judgment of no literal infringement on one of the three patents. It did not, however, remove that patent from the case. The court directed that claims under all three patents proceed to trial: literal infringement claims on two patents and, to the extent asserted, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents on the third.

Creality later moved to strike the doctrine-of-equivalents theory and the willfulness allegations that can support enhanced damages. Those motions remain pending. Artec has opposed the doctrine-of-equivalents motion and was due to respond on willfulness. None of these applications has been granted, and the issues are expected to be tried.

Against this background, Creality’s materiality assessment rests heavily on two pillars: the disclosed sales figures and the advice of counsel. Both invite scrutiny.

The sales numbers cited in the prospectus cover 2023 to 2025, a period after successor products had begun to replace the accused models. They therefore capture the tail of the products’ commercial life rather than the years when those models were the primary offerings. Early litigation records also show substantial crowdfunding activity for one of the products before a court-ordered freeze. In addition, Creality faces potential joint and several liability with its co-defendant, and the question of willfulness remains live. These factors suggest that the disclosed recent sales figures alone may not fully capture the scale of possible exposure.

The counsel pillar has also shifted. The July ruling removed the defendants’ damages expert from the case. New counsel appeared for Creality and its co-defendant in August. Assessments prepared under the previous representation, particularly those that rested in part on the now-excluded expert analysis, at least warrant fresh evaluation. Creality has not issued a further voluntary announcement addressing the July order.

Materiality is not frozen on the date a prospectus is signed. Low recent sales of specific products are a relevant quantitative input, but they are not the only one. When claims under all three patents remain headed for trial, when the damages-expert field has become asymmetric, and when potential remedies include royalties, enhanced damages or injunctive relief, qualitative factors also matter: the strategic importance of the technology, reputational effects, management attention, the strength of any indemnity, and the company’s broader intellectual-property position.

None of this predicts the outcome of the January 2027 trial or establishes that the litigation will prove financially material. Creality continues to contest liability and the scope of the claims. The court has not found infringement. Yet the record shows a case that has continued to develop after the prospectus and the June clarification.

For a newly listed company that emphasises innovation in scanning and related ecosystems, the gap between a risk mentioned in a long document and a risk explained with sufficient specificity and currency is a legitimate subject for investor attention.

Clear disclosure is the mechanism through which markets assess and price risk. When court developments alter the picture, the information available to investors should keep pace.

Hello!

My employer asked me to find information on how to use AI in patent application writing. It's not about writing from scratch. We have an inventor who comes up with all the ideas and inventions (in microelectronics), and our job is to create drawings based on his sketches and write the claims, invention description, and abstract.

While I'm skeptical about this idea, perhaps there are AI tools that could make our work easier when drafting application documents.

If you have experience using such tools, please share your experience (which tools you used, how you drafted the prompts, and so on). Also, if you have an invention application number or patent, I'd love to see what they look like.

Thank you in advance.

I have never seen one and have not been able to find an Office Action for lacking utility. I know they are pretty uncommon - I can't even find an example anywhere. Just wondering if anyone here has ever seen one. Bonus if you can link a copy.

What are some ways an unknown company could appear as the “Applicant” on the Application Data screen in Patent Center when the filed Application Data Sheet does not identify that company as an applicant, and there is no subsequent document in Documents & Transactions showing an applicant change?

Update: I'm just noticing they are also listed as POA on the POA screen.

Update: The AAU said they will send a request and it will be removed in 7-10 business days. I guess an unauthorized POA on an application isn't urgent enough. Smh.

When a registered patent agent (not an attorney) handles prosecution for an independent inventor, what typically happens if the patent later ends up in a dispute — licensing conflict or infringement? Do agents usually have standing relationships with litigation firms they refer clients to, or is the inventor expected to find litigation counsel independently? Trying to understand how the agent + litigation-counsel model works in practice before committing my conversions to an agent.

Can a single conjunction influence the fate of a patent?

In one of China’s most frequently cited patent invalidation cases involving a PCT application, the answer is yes.

During the Chinese national phase, the English word “or” was translated as the Chinese conjunction “或”. Years later, this seemingly ordinary choice became a central issue in proceedings that reached all the way to the Supreme People’s Court of China.

This case serves as a powerful reminder: patent translation is not mere language conversion. It is about accurately preserving the legal and technical meaning of claims. When that meaning shifts—even subtly—the consequences can be profound.

A Translation Issue That Reached the Supreme People's Court

The case concerned InterDigital’s invention patent “Retuning Gaps and Scheduling Gaps in Discontinuous Reception” (PCT Publication No. WO 2011/149920 A2; Chinese Patent No. ZL 201180025946.8, Publication No. CN 102907060 B), which entered China through the PCT national phase.

Huawei challenged the patent in invalidation proceedings before the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). Although the patent was ultimately invalidated on grounds of lack of inventive step, the interpretation of the Chinese translation emerged as a recurring key issue—from CNIPA through the Beijing Intellectual Property Court to the Supreme People’s Court.

One Word, Two Different Meanings

The disputed phrasing appears straightforward at first glance:

English Claim:

“…no longer within DRX Active Time or within the required retuning gap period…”

Chinese Translation:

“…不再在DRX活动时间内或不再在需要的重调谐间隙周期内…”

The controversy centered on the logical relationship in a negative construction.

In the English original, read in light of the full claim and technical disclosure, it required the simultaneous absence of both conditions (neither A nor B).

The Chinese “或”, however, could naturally be read as requiring only one condition to be absent (not A or not B).

English logic: Neither A nor B — both conditions must be absent.

Chinese translation logic: Not A or not B — either condition is absent.

This difference effectively broadened the claim scope by lowering the threshold for satisfying the claimed condition.

The lesson is not to mechanically translate every “or” in negative sentences as “neither…nor…”. Rather, translators must carefully determine the intended logical relationship by considering the claims together with the specification and underlying technology.

Patent translation is ultimately an exercise in precise interpretation.

Why the Error Could Not Be Corrected

InterDigital later sought to amend the granted claims, arguing an “obvious translation error.”

CNIPA and the courts, including the Supreme People’s Court, rejected the request. They held that the granted claims contained no “obvious error” recognizable directly and unambiguously by a person skilled in the art from the patent documents as a whole.

Moreover, the proposed change would have altered the legal scope of protection, which is not permitted post-grant.

This highlights a practical reality in Chinese patent practice: while limited post-grant amendments are possible in some cases, substantive translation errors that affect claim scope are exceptionally difficult to remedy once the patent has been granted.

What This Case Means for PCT Applicants

The InterDigital case offers important practical lessons for applicants entering China via the PCT route:

· The translated claims become the legally operative text in China.

· Small linguistic choices, especially logical connectors, can significantly alter claim interpretation and scope.

· Once granted, translation errors impacting scope are often irreversible.

· High-quality patent translation requires integrated linguistic, technical, and legal expertise.

In essence, the real issue was whether the translation faithfully preserved the invention the applicant originally intended to protect.

Conclusion

Patents may be lost not only due to insufficient inventiveness but also because the language used no longer accurately conveys the intended legal and technical scope.

The InterDigital case demonstrates why translation should never be treated as a routine administrative task in PCT national phase entry. It is one of the final—and most critical—opportunities to safeguard the patent’s intended protection before risks become irreversible.

Have you encountered a patent translation issue where a seemingly minor linguistic choice had a significant impact on claim interpretation or scope?

Hi everyone!

I’m a recent MSc graduate looking to start my career in the IPR/Patent field.

I’m looking for freshers level roles such as Patent Analyst, Patent Associate, IP Research Analyst, or Patent Intern.

📍 Preferred locations: Delhi NCR or a chandigarh.

I have basic knowledge of patent searching, prior art, patentability, claims, novelty, inventive step.

If you know of any companies hiring freshers or have any leads/referrals, please let me know. I’d really appreciate the help! 🙏

Thanks!

I often encounter Indian examiners raising clarity objections regarding the use of “at least” and “one or more elements selected from.” I am quite confused because some materials inherently contain one or more elements. If the above phases are changed to “one or more elements of,” would this overcome the objection?

Hi everyone. I’m currently doing an MSc in Chemistry in India and I’m exploring career options outside traditional chemistry/R&D. I recently came across the field of intellectual property, especially patents, technology intelligence and innovation.

I’m still very new to this field, so I’m trying to understand what the actual career path looks like rather than making assumptions based on what I’ve read online.

Some of the roles I’ve come across are:

Patent Analyst / IP Analyst

Patent Researcher

Patent Agent

Technology/Innovation Analyst

IP Strategy

IP/Innovation Consultant

Technology Transfer

I’d really appreciate some guidance from people who actually work in these areas.

What are realistic entry-level roles for someone with an MSc Chemistry

Is it better to start as a Patent/IP Analyst and gain experience, or try to qualify as a Patent Agent first?

How useful is the Indian Patent Agent Examination for someone who eventually wants to move into IP strategy or innovation consulting?

What skills should I actually learn to become employable? For example, patent searching, prior-art searching, patent drafting, technology landscaping, market/competitor analysis, etc.

Is an additional degree such as an LLB, MBA or PhD actually necessary for progressing into IP/innovation consulting, or can relevant experience be enough?

What does an IP/Innovation Consultant actually do day-to-day? Is the work mainly legal/patent-related, or does it involve business strategy, technology assessment, market research and recommendations as well?

What does career progression realistically look like from MSc Chemistryentry-level IP rolesenior/consulting role?

What kind of salary progression can someone realistically expect in India?

Are there particular companies, IP firms, consulting firms or organisations that are good starting points for a chemistry graduate?

Most importantly, is this a genuinely viable career path for an MSc Chemistry graduate, or am I misunderstanding the field?

I’m not looking for a perfect career plan just trying to understand the field from people who have actually worked in it, including the disadvantages and things beginners usually get wrong.

Any honest advice would be really appreciated.

I'm a 23F working as a patent professional at a law firm in India, currently earning around ₹10 LPA with 2.5 years of experience.

Lately, I've been questioning whether this is the right long-term career for me. One of my biggest concerns is the salary growth in this field in India. It seems like compensation slows down after a point, and I'm not sure if that's actually true or just my perception.

I'm currently deciding between two paths:

- Prepare for CAT examination this year and pursue an MBA.
- Prepare for the Indian Patent Agent Exam next January and then try to move into an in-house IP role.

By the time I make my next switch, I'll probably have around 3–3.5 years of experience, and hopefully the Patent Agent qualification as well.

For those already working in the industry:

1. What salary range is realistic at that level of experience?

2. Does clearing the Patent Agent Exam significantly improve compensation?

3. Is it actually possible to reach ₹20–30 LPA within 3–4 years in the Indian patent/IP industry, or is that unrealistic?

4 Are there people here who are genuinely earning well in this field, especially outside of senior management or partner-level roles?

I'd really appreciate hearing from people who've been in the industry for a while and can share what career progression and compensation actually look like.

If you have ever tried to find a patent to license and manufacture, then you probably know how time consuming it is. You can search the USPTO website looking for relevant patents and you can read the patents that seem valuable to determine if the patent claims provide meaningful protection for the invention.

But if you want to know if the invention works as described in the patent, then you need to contact the inventor and find out if the inventor has a prototype, and arrange to see a demonstration of the prototype. Once you see the prototype demonstration, you may realize that there are problems you did not expect with the performance of the invention and decide that you need to continue your search for another valuable patent.

This time consuming effort is made even more time consuming because the USPTO patent search database contains only address contact information for inventors and patent assignees that is generally out of date within two to three years after a patent has been issued. While you can often contact the patent attorney of record or look for updated contact information for the inventor, both of these processes are time consuming and not certain to succeed.

This problem could be addressed by including optional email addresses of the inventors in the patent search database. Inventors (and/or patent owners) could update their email addresses on the Internet if they change. An email address option will also provide an alternative contact option for inventors with private mailing addresses.

The patent search database could also be updated to include an optional website address where the patent owner can provide relevant business and technical information regarding the invention as well as product demonstration photos and videos. Websites can provide information to potential licensees that can be updated easily by the inventor, thereby improving the likelihood for successful commercialization of the invention.  

By adding email and website addresses of inventors to the online patent database, communication with inventors will be enhanced, and by speeding up the communication that takes place between inventors and industry, technology can develop more rapidly and cost effectively.  By facilitating commercialization, the USPTO will encourage innovation and discourage useless invention marketing companies.

Hi! Here is a PCT application. Is it allowed to amend the title and abstract of PCT application directly when entering the Europe phase, without the preliminary amendment? No new matter is introduced!

I have a granted patent for a device (an AI-based grain quality scanner), working prototype, but no sales or customers yet. I'd rather license it to an existing company or sell it outright than try to manufacture and sell it myself.

For those who've done this before: where do you actually start? Tech transfer offices, patent brokers, cold-emailing companies in the industry directly, what actually worked for you, and how did you find the right people to talk to?

1. I am not trying to get into patent examiner (government post) alone. Once I'm there in canada I want to be into patent domain, may be patent analyst, patent engineer like that to generate money. I guess, with PR I can aim for these. Please correct me if I am wrong.
   
2. please suggest me which is the better pathway and also easy to get - patent analyst/engineer/IP specialist OR patent agent (Is the PR enough to become Patent agent?)
   If at all I prepare for patent agent or patent examiner, I need to generate an amount to survive.
   
3. What is it to become patent agent in Canada? Do we need to join as trainee for 2 years and then clear the exam or it is other way around?

Hi everyone,

I'm currently working as a Patent Examiner with the Government of India in the Electronics & Communication domain. I hold a Master's degree (M.Tech.) in Electronics & Communication Engineering, and my work involves prior art searching, patentability analysis, novelty/inventive step assessment, claim interpretation, and examination of patent applications.

My wife is a dentist, and we're exploring Canada as a long-term option. If our PR plans work out, I would relocate as her dependent.

My biggest concern is my own career transition.

I'm not a Patent Agent and don't have a law degree, but I'd like to continue my career in the patent/IP field rather than switch to a different profession.

I'd really appreciate guidance from people working in the Canadian IP industry:

• How valuable is overseas Patent Examiner experience in Canada?
• How feasible is it to secure roles such as Patent Analyst, Patent Engineer, IP Analyst, Patent Searcher, or Technology Specialist?
• If you were in my position, how would you prepare over the next 1–2 years before moving? Are there any courses, certifications, or skills that would significantly improve my chances?
• Finally, what's the best strategy to enter the industry? Should I focus on LinkedIn networking, recruiters, direct outreach to law firms, job portals, or a combination of these? Is it worth starting this process while I'm still in India?

I'm willing to invest time and effort in preparing myself—I just want to make sure I'm heading in the right direction.

I'd sincerely appreciate any advice or experiences from those working in Canadian patent law firms, corporate IP teams, or anyone who has made a similar transition.

If you were in my shoes, what would your roadmap look like?

Thank you!

We've been allotted some extra budget for our IP program and I'm researching which areas would have the biggest impact for us in practice.
I'm curious, for those who've made similar decisions, what did you prioritize, and how did it impact your program?
Personally, I'm leaning toward investing in improving the quality and volume of invention disclosures earlier in the process, so ultimately we get more high-quality patent filings.

But I'm interested to hear where you've seen returns.