Patent mis-translation case
The PatentHawk blog covers Gillet Outillage v. Fisher Tool which involved the mis-translation within US 6,189,190:
The purported mistranslation is this: The patent claims a device for fastening together the pliers' handles using what would, in English, be termed a latch. One end of the latch is fixed to one handle by a hinge; at the latch's end is a hook that catches on a post on the other handle, thereby locking the two handles together. In the French patent, the latch is called a "mécanisme à cliquet;" in the U.S. patent, it is termed a "ratchet mechanism."
***Separately
No IP-Biz
The purported mistranslation is this: The patent claims a device for fastening together the pliers' handles using what would, in English, be termed a latch. One end of the latch is fixed to one handle by a hinge; at the latch's end is a hook that catches on a post on the other handle, thereby locking the two handles together. In the French patent, the latch is called a "mécanisme à cliquet;" in the U.S. patent, it is termed a "ratchet mechanism."
***Separately
No IP-Biz
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 11:36 AM
1 Comments:
Interesting. The problem is cliquet is a broader term in French than ratchet is in English. The translator evidently chose the first (most common) definition, but should have been more attentive, or looked closely at the figure to realize we're not talking about a rotary mechanism with multiple catches as the term "ratchet" suggests in English. Context is everything in translation.
Glenn
yndigo translations
Post a Comment
<< Home