Lawful Cases That Demonstrate the Need for Professional Translators
An improper translation submitted to the USPTO may narrow the scope of the patent claim, since the mis-translation will specify an amendment to the patent write-down. We’ll look at two further court cases that highlight the outcomes of using low-quality translations for legal purposes. You might risk owning your translation refused during the court case as a result of a poor translation method or questionable translator qualification. You may also risk the invalidation of the patent statements due to the insufficient translation of a large chunk of prior art.
A crucial claim in the patent might be invalidated due to an inadequate translation of a particular sentence in a sheet of prior art. For instance, in the case of Mitsubishi Chemical Organization, et al. v Barr Laboratories, Inc. and Pliva-Hrvatska D.O.O., the interpretation of the translation for a single sentence from a piece of prior art determined the validity of contested statements. A patent translation is more likely to be found reliable by the court if a documented quality process is followed to create the translation. In the Mitsubishi situation, the court refused the translations provided by the defendant due to errors that occurred during the translation method.
A court may reject a patent translation that isn’t created by a fully competent translator with demonstrated credentials. In the case of On Demand Product Corporation v. Ingram Industries, et al. the court states that in order for the Japan application to be looked at as prior art evidence by the court, it has got to be translated by a qualified patent translator.