Let’s say I was attempting to patent a new kind of lumbar support pillow, and I wanted to use that patent to break the back of anyone who makes a similar kind of pillow. Now, if my potential victims know that patent’s relevant, they won’t wander into my crosshairs, so I call it a subclavicular negasublaxation device for the purpose of minor analgesia and mild emotional antidysregulation particularly for information-linguistic workers in non-outdoors settings. That is, I use a bunch of neologisms and legitimate jargon stretched to the point of near-meaninglessness to utterly obscure the fact I’m patenting a pillow for your back. Is that allowed? Do I have to use normal language so people can find my patent if they look for it in good faith?
The standard for the written description is that it “…shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same…” (35 U.S.C. 112)
So the argument would be whether someone skilled in the art would be able to practice your invention with what you have provided.
OK, that demand for a clear and concise written description likely kills my plan.
Thanks.
The whole point of patents after all is to give your idea to the public in return for some amount of time of exclusivity.
Your strategy isn’t completely unknown. But it more takes the form of keeping patents unpublished for as long as possible by requesting non-publication.
I’m not so sure about that. You just need to get your application past whichever patent examiner happens to review it. If it’s initially rejected for being too obfuscatory, just make it a little clearer and re-submit it.
It doesn’t even really need to hold up in court. Patent trolls rarely actually go to trial, much less win damages. As long as the settlement you’re willing to agree to is less costly than the time and bother and expense of litigation, just the threat of litigation can make you a nice bit of cash.
I’d say you have rather conflicting interests
As long as the Examiner doesn’t determine that you are adding new matter by clarifying, then you’re screwed.