\n
Claims of invention (useful model) forensic examination investigation limits<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Serhii Petrenko<\/strong>
Ukraine<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Abstract
<\/strong>The article breaks down the differences in the approaches to research of inventions (utility models) on compliance with the \u00abnovelty\u00bb feature of patentability during qualification examination of application materials for inventions (utility models), and forensic examination of inventions (utility models). The emphasis is placed on the point that in case of invention (utility model) compliance with the criterion of \u00abnovelty\u00bb forensic examination and qualification examination, experts work with different objects. In the first case, the object is claims for intellectual property object with clearly defined scope of rights, and in the second case \u2014 claims that describe a potentially patentable technical solution. The article considers disadvantages of the Methodology for conducting forensic examinations related to inventions and useful models (universal), which is used by forensic experts in determining the information on the level of technology of a set of essential features of the invention (utility model), are considered. One of the drawbacks is lack of a separation of features of the invention (utility model) into features of independent and dependent items of claims of the invention (utility model) during the examination. As a result of the aforementioned shortcomings, the forensic examination considers the criteria on compliance with the \u00abnovelty\u00bb feature of patentability more widely than the qualification examination, which is unacceptable.<\/p>\n\n\n\nKeywords: <\/strong>invention, utility model, forensic examination, qualification examination, application, novelty, conditions of patentability<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Theory and practice of intellectual property\u2116 6 \/ 2018 ISSN (Print) 2308-0361ISSN (Online) 2519-2744 DOI: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.33731\/62018.162530 Published \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a02018-12-26 Claims of invention (useful model) forensic examination investigation limits Serhii PetrenkoUkraine AbstractThe article breaks down the differences in the approaches to research of inventions (utility models) on compliance with the \u00abnovelty\u00bb feature of patentability during qualification examination […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-10851","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10851","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10851"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10851\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10853,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10851\/revisions\/10853"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10851"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/018-cover-734x1024.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/test.inprojournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/free-icon-pdf-201153.png\"){kind=icon}
PDF (Ukrainian)<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/CC-2.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n