Identifying unique/first application of an IP

[mark]

Dear all,

I have a specific selection of about 300 applications - let's call it set A. In set A there are several applications which seem to be the same based on comparing their title, abstract and their dates (sometimes completely the same) - there are about 20 cases (out of 300) with several similar/same applications. Unfortunately, all of these applications do not share the same ids (e.g. docdb_family_id and earliest_filing_id). There is also no link in tls204_appln_prior between these applications. In most cases the application ids are the same except for the last digits. Also by looking up these application in Espacenet or Google Patents, I do not find any hint on how to give a statement about their relationship except for comparing the content.

Am I missing any information? Should I treat these applications as not related applications and therefore as different IPs?

If examples are needed I can provide some specific application ids (if this is allowed in this discussion forum).

Best regards
Mark

[Geert Boedt]

Hello Mark,

The linking of patent applications into families is not an exact science, and is based on (partly not published) business rules which suite the various users of the relational conditions specified. Specific at the EPO we use the "priority picture" to define a Simple (DocDB) and Extended (Inpadoc) family. These business rules also include looking at continuations, divisional and “technical relations” defined by the examiners when examining EP applications. The following link gives a more thorough explanation on family concepts: http://www.epo.org/searching-for-patent ... ilies.html

In this case, even though some applications seem very much the same, these relations are not present even though by looking at title an abstract, one might assume that some kind of relation should be there. (And from an invention point of view, I am sure they are related.)
In principle, the title and the abstract are only of secondary importance. The core is defined in the claims. For the first set of 7 applications, the number of claims vary from 6,7,10 AND 12. Cited documents in the search report vary between 4 and 9 documents. So that means that the examiners considered different sets of documents when looking at the claims and the prior art (I did not compare the sets of cited documents on content.) Without reading the claims in detail (I have no expertise on doing so), I would assume that there are effective differences between the applications. One of the applications (DE102013219513) also has an EP equivalent (EP2853195) which is now in examination at the EPO. It might be possible that the applicant will drop the set of DE applications once the EP has been granted. I think this is a typical example of filing strategy. Bottom line: the applicant has filed 8 seemingly the same applications, but on a deeper look at the claims, they all differ a bit. (abstract and titles are the same, as well as the set of inventors.)

Appln_id 15009226 has 1 title and 1 abstract. But the DE document was claimed in a PCT (WO) application that had a different formulation of the title (but similar meaning in my opinion).
As mentioned before, the title and the abstract are only of secondary importance; there is no obligation that family members should have the same title or abstract. (and mostly they are in different languages as well.)

Code: Select all

select appln_auth, appln_nr, appln_kind,appln_filing_date, inpadoc_family_id, docdb_family_id, psn_name,appln_title,appln_nr_epodoc, appln_abstract
from tls201_appln join tls207_pers_appln on tls201_appln.appln_id = tls207_pers_appln.appln_id
join tls206_person on tls207_pers_appln.person_id = tls206_person.person_id
join tls202_appln_title on tls201_appln.appln_id = tls202_appln_title.appln_id
join tls203_appln_abstr on tls201_appln.appln_id = tls203_appln_abstr.appln_id
where  tls201_appln.appln_id = '15009226' -- in  ('438215123', '438215125', '426337980', '426337984', '426337888', '426338660', '437912878')
and applt_seq_nr > 0
order by tls201_appln.appln_id, applt_seq_nr

Appln_id’s 14945709 and 14945750:
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publica ... KC=A1&ND=4
and https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publica ... KC=A1&ND=4

--> different classifications, different set of cited documents --> this already is an indication that the technology and inventions are (somewhere) different.

I did not look further at the other examples, but I am sure that on a closer look to the claims, there are differences.
I hope this answers your question.