Template talk:Cite patent/Archive 1

Archive 1

Combine

This template should be combined with Template:US patent reference and Template:US patent application. — Omegatron 03:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, unless you can provide functionality to allow the user to go to either the USPTO database of the espacenet database as they see fit, which starts making it a somewhat complex template to use. Personally, I would always prefer the espacenet database, but some people might prefer linking to the USPTO, so the US templates have the uses and provide a different function than this template. GDallimore (Talk) 07:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Some people prefer USPTO, some people prefer espacenet, some people prefer Google Patents. But how do you decide which to link to in an article? Personal preference of the editor adding the link? That's not a good solution. We need to merge the templates and provide a way to link to all of the databases. See Bugzilla:10866 for a proposed solution. In the meantime, we should pick one database and stick to it. — Omegatron 14:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The problem of multiple database references has been solved in the case of ISBNs by Special:BookSources which gives a special page that gives a choice of databases to the user. I think this solution is cleaner than using multiple citation tags, one per database. Int21h (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

About the "usage" section... The fictional example

{{Cite patent|US|6528659|pubdate=[[2006-05-17]]|gdate=[[2007-03-17]]|fdate=[[2006-05-17]]|pridate=[[2005-05-17]] |invent1=Fox|assign=IBM|form=long}}

returns "US 6528659, Fox, published 2006-05-17, issued 2007-03-17, assigned to IBM ". What's the purpose of the fields which do not show up? Just wondering... (there are two "invent1" fields, the second one should probably be invent2?) --Edcolins 19:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no purpose at the moment, and may not be in the long term, but I thought I'd suggest a standard format for this sort of information now in case the template gets extended in future. Thanks for pointing out the error. GDallimore (Talk) 21:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge to other template

{{Mergeto|US patent}} Please consider merging the templates. --CyclePat 20:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

They do quite different things and have different uses. US patent links to the US patent database which only include US patents but can also include US designs and re-issues. This template links to the espacenet databae, which has patents from all over the world on it, but doesn't include some of the quirkier details of the US database.

So, I don't think either can quite be deprecated in favour of the other unless the templates are made more complex to include a switch that allows users to choose which database to link to. GDallimore (Talk) 21:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

{{Mergewith|Citation|template_talk:Citation#Proposal to merge redundant citation templates}}

That could be a good idea with {{ref patent}} or {{citeref patent}} but this is intended as a very simple linking template that can be used inline in the article. Therefore it serves a different purpose. Citation doesn't, in my view, have as much power as ref patent or citeref patent yet, so merging those would not be appropriate either. GDallimore (Talk) 12:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Google

Can anyone make a version to point to the google patent database? The USPO ones don't always load bacause of quicktime problems. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't think that's a good idea. espacenet, which this template links to is better, more comprehensive and probably more reliable than google patents. Also, espacenet doesn't use weird image formats like the USPTO site. If I found a google link, I would invariably replace it with an espacenet link. GDallimore (Talk) 10:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Add notation that makes it clear which patent lookup service is being used

{{editprotected}} Please add the text "from Espacenet" to the template to make it clear which patent lookup service is being used. For example, for {{patent|US|3351836}} produce

• US 3351836  from Espacenet

instead of just

• US 3351836 

Thanks 68.167.254.66 (talk) 06:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC).

Sorry, but this change goes completely against the intended and actual current use of the template - which is to provide a brief inline link to the a patent. Making this change would require corresponding changes to almost every article in which the template is used. The change is also unecessary. Why would someone need to know that they are going to follow a link to espacenet before they actually follow it? And, having followed the link, it's completely clear where they are. GDallimore (Talk) 08:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

please add that espacenet also allows the user to change the user interface language

On the article (template description) page it should be added after

"Simple patent template for citing patents or patent applications from any country in the esp@cenet database. This database is more useful than the USPTO database since it highlights related patents/applications in other countries as well as providing current status information. However, the {{US patent|123456|link text}} template is not deprecated because the USPTO database does include items that are not included in the espacenet database."

that espacenet allows users to switch between English, German and French as the user interface language for selecting parts and browsing patents.
Please can someone of you add this information on the write-protected page, thanks. --Wikinaut (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The documentation page is not protected, so you can add this if you want. However, I really don't think it's worthwhile. This is not the place to be telling people how to use espacenet, it is the documentation page for how to use the template. GDallimore (Talk) 10:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wait. I see what you're talking about... I'll add something. GDallimore (Talk) 10:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional information:
Espacenet has also recently changed their interface and the following generic call to their new SmartSearch would perhaps be perfect for all Wikipedia templates referring to patents; their server is online all day long. By the way, Espacenet covers all patents worldwide, not only US or EP:

http://v3.espacenet.com/searchResults?compact=true&DB=EPODOC&query={searchItem}

Example http://v3.espacenet.com/searchResults?compact=true&DB=EPODOC&query=US2005123456

Notice, that patent application (US20050123456) and also publication numbers US2005123456 are both found using this new call.

--Wikinaut (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Smart Search

--- Copied from personal talk page --- Espacenet has also recently changed their interface and the following generic call to their new SmartSearch would perhaps be perfect for all Wikipedia templates referring to patents; their server is online all day long. By the way, Espacenet covers all patents worldwide, not only US or EP:

http://v3.espacenet.com/searchResults?compact=true&DB=EPODOC&query={searchItem}

Example http://v3.espacenet.com/searchResults?compact=true&DB=EPODOC&query=US2005123456

Notice, that patent application (US20050123456) and also publication numbers US2005123456 are both found using this new call.

--Wikinaut (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't think that would be a good call to use. It creates a link to a list of search results rather than a link to a specific patent or patent application. This makes it very unclear which patent is being talked about, which is bad from a referencing perspective. GDallimore (Talk) 10:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge request

I've added a merge request at template talk:ref patent#Merge request to (finally) combine {{cite patent}} and {{ref patent}} into one backward-compatible template. Should this be approved, the plan will be to move {{ref patent}} over {{cite patent}} so that we have one comprehensive general-purpose citation template for all patents. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

New code seems to work just fine. Good plan. GDallimore (Talk) 21:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

COinS tag

I added a COinS tag to this template so that the information can be retrieved for citations, etc. Unanswered questions:

• The COinS tag can accept a "kind" field, described as The patent kind code indicates the stage of the patent. Kind codes are meaningful within a country code, ie.e. "AU A1".
  • Is this related to the ECLA classification?

Dates:

Template accepts:

• pubdate to provide the publication date of an application.
• gdate to provide the date of grant of a patent
• pridate to provide the priority date
• fdate to provide the filing date

COinS accepts:

• date Date patent was issued.
• applyear Year the application was made.
• appldate Date of the patent application.
• pubdate Publication date of the patent.
• prioritydate Priority application date

I did my best to make these match up, but please check if I got the meanings right:

• gdate = date
• pridate = prioritydate
• fdate = appldate
• pubdate = pubdate

Also, I didn't realize before I started this that it is only used in a handful of articles. Should it be merged with {{US patent reference}}? — Omegatron 20:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've mentioned elsewhere, the two patent databases: (USPTO and espacenet) have different features. Either it would be necessary to include a potentially confusing switch to allow the user to choose which database to link to or they should be kept as separate templates. GDallimore (Talk) 21:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why someone would choose one over the other in an article.

Also, can we convert the dates to 2007-04-23 instead of [[2007-04-23]] and link them internally? This would allow the COinS tag to encode the date correctly. The markup stripping extension has been proposed, but not yet included. — Omegatron 23:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

use {{US patent}}?

In converting a couple of inline {{US patent}} uses to use <ref> and this template, I noticed that this template does not create the PDF links like the other template. Can we add a conditional inclusion for the PDF links if country=US? AdThanksVance. Slambo (Speak) 11:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is an option, although probably not in quite the way you're thinking. The link at the moment points to a page of information about the patent (example US 5555555 . That page includes, as a series of tabs across the top, links to view the plain text of the patent or to view and usually download a copy of the PDF. I could add an optional link directly to the PDF view with a term "viewPDF=" or something if you really wanted, but given that it would only take one additional click to get there anyway, I'm not sure it's worth it. GDallimore (Talk) 14:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just made this edit to an article you were working on to show you some of the options for using this template and the template {{Cite patent}} which is the simpler version more like the US patent template. See what you can do with them to get the article the way you want! GDallimore (Talk) 14:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Delinking dates

This template needs to be updated to not automatically link the date fields. Linking dates to get the autoformatting has been deprecated; see MOS:UNLINKDATES for a summary and links to lengthy discussion on the subject. Slambo (Speak) 13:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. This creates a problem, though, in that the template documentation mandates "yyyy-mm-dd" format for the dates. I assume this format supports the "COINS" automatic data extraction, but it is generally considered unacceptable form on WP. I removed the date links anyway, because while they do allow some editors to see the dates in their preferred format, most users (and nearly all non-editors) were still seeing the date in yyyy-mm-dd form. Unlinked "yyyy-mm-dd" is the best option until someone implements a better way to reformat dates. --Srleffler (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Show inventor?

Is there some reason why invent1, invent2, etc are not displayed? Other reference types consistently show author.LeadSongDog (talk) 03:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The inventor is almost never the author of the patent specification so comparisons with other citation templates cannot be made on that basis. The field is there because it could be useful information to have a record of, but it is rarely very important when displaying the citation compared to the applicant or assignee. The other problem with displaying the inventor is that there can often be five, ten, even fifteen of them where the invention was the result of a large project. That would get very messy very quickly. GDallimore (Talk) 10:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote so it displays the inventors. GDallimore reverted saying the applicant was what is usually wanted, but there's no applicant field. I reverted his revert because it displayed error messages. I can easily write something so applicants/assignees is displayed as the "author". Or something similar. Let's say all fields are there, how should it display?Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant assignee when I said applicant, which is added using the "assignX" fields. Author is definitely the wrong thing to say. Who is the "author" of a patent application? Usually a patent attorney, and nobody cares about that. I've reverted to the last version that worked. If you want to re-add the warning messages and whatever else you did, fine, but I've yet to see a good reason to list the inventors and a way to solve the problems mentioned in my comments above. GDallimore (Talk) 23:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, you made a bold edit, I reverted and now you're supposed to discuss. What are you now trying to do to the template and why? GDallimore (Talk) 10:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And we've discussed and I've re-WP:BRD. Now I suggest you read WP:OWN because that's what you're doing here. Reverting to my version since you didn't explain a thing.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 10:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What discussion? You did something, I said don't do it and gave reasons and you did it again. You haven't explained what you're doing. You haven't updated the instructions. How can anyone know what you edits entail or whether they're good edits. GDallimore (Talk) 10:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine whatever, own this thing. I'm not interested in dealing with people who refuse change because the appropriate formulas haven't been signed in triplicata.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 11:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop making personal attacks. You're making a raft of changes without discussion to a template that has been semi-protected due to its visibility. There are improvements that could be made, but not the way you're doing it. For example, I'd like to have the OPTION to display inventors for those limited cases where the inventor, eg Trevor Baylis is important. But ALWAYS displaying that info is a bad idea for, say, a Microsoft patent, where the important thing is who owns it, not who the inventor(s) were. GDallimore (Talk) 11:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the inventors should be included in a patent citation. As a legal issue, a patent can be invalidated if the list of inventors in the patent publication is not accurate hence a complete patent citation should always include the list of inventors. Furthermore I don't see any fundamental difference between a scientific and a patent publication. Why should citations to the former include authors but citations to the later not include inventors? As a practical issue, if a Wikipedia editor wants to suppress the display of inventors, the inventor field(s) can be commented out or left blank or the inventor parameter(s) omitted from the template altogether. Boghog2 (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The statement: "The inventor is almost never the author of the patent specification so comparisons with other citation templates cannot be made on that basis." is misleading. It is true that the patent application is usually drafted by patent attorney, but this draft in turn is most often based on text written by the inventors. So the question "who is the author" becomes semantic and from a legal standpoint, irrelevant. If an opposition to a patent is filed, it is the inventors that are summoned by the court, not the patent attorney who drafted the application.

In response to: "The other problem with displaying the inventor is that there can often be five, ten, even fifteen of them where the invention was the result of a large project." This problem is no different than what exists in scientific publications where for example gene sequencing or particle physics papers can have several hundred authors. This problem can easily be solved with adding "et al." after listing the first several authors. Boghog2 (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

In analogy to {{cite journal}}, I have added to {{ref patent2}} an "inventor" parameter. For example:

{{Ref patent2 | country = WO | number = 2007050353 | status = application | title = Methods of treatment using oxytocin receptor agonists | pubdate = 2007-05-03 | fdate = | pridate= 2005-10-24 | inventor = Rahman Z, Resnick L, Rosenzweig-Lipson SJ, Ring RH | assign1= Wyeth Corp }} will render as follows:

WO patent application 2007050353, Rahman Z, Resnick L, Rosenzweig-Lipson SJ, Ring RH, "Methods of treatment using oxytocin receptor agonists", published 2007-05-03, assigned to Wyeth Corp 

If you don't want the inventors displayed, simply omit the inventor parameter. As there are no automatic ways similar to template filler tool for adding inventors to the {{ref patent}} template, one would have to make a conscious decision to add inventors to this template therefore by default, the inventors will not be displayed. Are there any objections for adding a inventors parameter to the {{ref patent}} template? Boghog2 (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Since no one has so far objected to the above proposal, I have added an optional "inventor" parameter to the {{ref patent}} template and have also documented the use of this parameter in the Template:Ref_patent/doc subpage. Boghog2 (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There was a stray comma being displayed if "inventor" was omitted, so I moved the comma inside of the #if block. -- Bovineone (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My error. Thanks for fixing it. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge request

I've made some changes to this template to (finally) make it backwards-compatible (through making all attributes optional, and allowing for anonymous attributes) with the current {{cite patent}}. This should have no fallout: I've started a test cases page to check that everything works as it should. Should this be approved, the plan will be to move {{ref patent}} over {{cite patent}} so that we have one comprehensive general-purpose citation template for all patents. Chris Cunningham (not at work) – talk 15:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support – the {{ref patent}} template is a superset of the {{cite patent}} template. Having two templates for essentially the same purpose in confusing. Boghog (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} As this looks good to go, requesting admin assistance to complete the work. {{cite patent}} should be deleted and then this template moved to {{cite patent}}. Chris Cunningham (not at work) – talk 10:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a further step in this direction by making the output consistent with the patent output produced by Template:Citation; now both template produce COinS metadata and support all parameters. Let me know if there are any quirks that my testing did not detect. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've edited this template to support the parameters used by Template:Citation, for compatibility. Is there any reason for the output produced by this template to differ from that produced by Template:Citation/patent? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In the light of the discussion in the section above, and comments at User:Citation bot/bugs‎, I've amended Template:Citation/patent so that it produces the same output that was being produced here, and allowed each template to recognize the parameters used at the other. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Request "url=" parameter to access old patent abstracts

The problem is that abstracts for old patents that are omitted in espacenet are frequently available elsewhere on line. Suggestion is that the url parameter used in other cite template types be added so that the title can be linked to one of these other sources (google patents, etc.) for quick access to the abstract. Without this, it makes more sense to use the book or other cite template for old patents. Rostdo (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Update to doc page

I believe the doc page could do with some updating. It currently states that the parameter |invent1= is not displayed by the template. This is incorrect. Also, it encourages editors to use the parameter |inventor=, but peeking inside the template suggests that |inventor1-last=, |inventor1-first= and |inventorlink1= might be more appropriate. I did not want to edit the doc page myself as I don't understand this template. HairyWombat 07:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The documentation doesn't say what you say it says. GDallimore (Talk) 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, the documentation doesn't say what he says because I just changed it, sorry for the confusion) The template originally did not show the inventors, but after the above discussion, this was changed so the names of the inventors are now displayed. I have updated the template documentation to reflect this change in the template. In addition, a free format inventor parameter was also added. I think the use of the numbered inventor parameters is unnecessarily complex and I prefer the free format parameter, but to each his own. Boghog (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed the edit conflict myself. OK! GDallimore (Talk) 12:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Broken link for applications

I have used this template for a couple of patent applications. When I click on the resulting link to Espacenet, it says "An error has occurred: not found". An example is:

• US application 2005038718, "Method and System for Facilitating a Shopping Experience", published 2005-02-17, assigned to American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. 

Could somebody please fix this. HairyWombat 21:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

There was a typo in the application number (you typed "20050038718" and it should be "2005038718"). I have corrected the template above and the link now works. Boghog (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It did it twice, so I assumed it wasn't me. I have fixed the article I used them in. HairyWombat 21:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hang on, there is something wrong here. When I go to the USPTO website and search for application number 2005038718, it returns zero applications. When I search for 20050038718, it finds one. The 11 digit number is also the number printed in the actual patent application. I did not make any typo in the application number. Is this another bug in the Espacenet website? HairyWombat 06:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This is just poor observation of patent numbering standards between different patent offices. The EPO use a two letter country code, 4 digit year, then 6 digit number to identify applications. Unfortunately that's not totally consistent even with the espacenet system, but it's trying to cope with applications and patents published under different numbering systems worldwide whereas the USPTO just has to deal with their own patents/applications. GDallimore (Talk) 11:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. USPTO is responsible for US patent applications, and for defining the application numbers. If USPTO and EPO disagree on the numbering of patent applications then, by definition, USPTO is right and EPO is wrong. To get this template to produce the correct Espacenet link I have been forced to state the wrong number for the patent application. The solution, I would suggest, is to not link to the Espacenet website for US patent applications (and US patents). Instead, link to the USPTO website. This would allow the correct patent application number to be used, and so would be less misleading. HairyWombat 21:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing why you're getting upset about this. It's only leading zeroes so it's not really "wrong". The only reason there's a problem is because we're trying to link directly into the database with this template, something which espacenet (nor the US system for that matter) is not set up to do. So it's hardy their fault if our attempts to do clever things don't always work without a bit of massaging of the precise input data.

The benefit of espacenet is it provides you with a full international history of any related applications around the world and an easily usable published document view and download. That's certainly a benefit in the application you highlight which appears to have in excess of 300 related applications dating back to the late 1990s! Companies who do that with their patent portfolios really bug me... GDallimore (Talk) 23:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not a matter of getting upset (which I am not) but of accuracy. It is vitally important for encyclopedias to contain accurate information. That the difference between the USPTO and EPO patent application numbers is a leading zero is only apparent to people, like you (I saw that you have worked as a patent attorney), who are familiar with the patent process. It was not apparent to me, and it will not be apparent to the average reader of Wikipedia. I agree that Espacenet has advantages, but it also has disadvantages; namely that the US patent application numbers disagree with what is written on the actual US patent applications. This is misleading and will confuse people (it does not help that the leading zero does not lead). It is a value judgment whether the advantages of Espacenet outweigh the disadvantages, and we take differing views on this. I will start a discussion at Template talk:Citation/patent as that seems to have more traffic than here, and perhaps more people will join in. HairyWombat 03:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is obvious to most people that adding or subtracting prepended zeros from a number does not change the number (e.g., "0038718" = "038718"). What of course makes it less obvious is that the first four digits of the patent number are the year so that it may not be immediately clear that "20050038718" = "2005038718". It would be less confusing if a slash were inserted after the first four digits of the patent number (e.g., "2005/0038718" = "2005/038718"). One possible solution would be to add an optional "displayed_number" parameter to the template. The value of the "number" parameter would continue to be used to create the link. However if the "displayed_number" parameter is also defined, then this parameter is used instead of the "number" parameter to render the displayed patent number in the Wikipedia web page (analogous to a piped wiki link). For example, the following:

• {{Ref patent2 | country = US | number = 2005038718 | displayed_number = 2005/0038718 | status = application | title = Method and System for Facilitating a Shopping Experience | pubdate = 2005-02-17 | fdate = 2004-07-01 | assign1 = American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. }}

would display as:

• US patent application 2005/0038718, "Method and System for Facilitating a Shopping Experience", published 2005-02-17, assigned to American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. 

Boghog (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well the leading zero that does not lead certainly confused me. Your suggestion is a good one in that "2005/0038718" is what is printed on the paper application. (This brings to light a problem with the USPTO website in that when I search for this, the website returns "The Query ( 2005/0038718 ) was unparseable (Invalid Patent Number Search ).") A minor difficulty is that your suggestion would require some careful wording on the doc page, as editors using {{cite patent}} may not be at all familiar with patents. However, I think the doc page is doable. On balance, I like your suggestion. HairyWombat 06:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

US design patents

I'm having trouble with US design patent D566620. {{cite patent |country=US |number=D566620}} gives US D566620 . Following the generated link to espacenet, it tells me "An error has occurred - not found". Whereas {{US patent|D566620}} gives U.S. patent D566620, which links to the correct patent on google patents. Google patents provides a working link to espacenet as http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=D566620S1&KC=S1&FT=D , implying that S1 is important but {{cite patent |country=US |number=D566620S1}} gives US D566620S1 , which also fails. Am I using 'cite patent' wrong?  Stepho  talk  21:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because "design patents" are not really patents. GDallimore (Talk) 23:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a common source of confusion and I've started a discussion here to see if the US patent template can be clarified. I don't think you've done anything wrong for the time being, so long as you're aware that the distinction between patents and design patents is as important as that between trademarks and copyright.

As for this template, it only links to patents for inventions as described in the article patent, not design patents. GDallimore (Talk) 23:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the template could be tweaked by adding a parameter "design=yes" which would lead to adding "S1&FT=D" after the patent number in the URL: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=D566620S1&FT=D . It works for other (relatively recent) U.S. design patents:

• http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=D594279S1&FT=D
• http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=D594213S1&FT=D
• http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=D496219S1&FT=D
• http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=D446219S1&FT=D
• http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=D439219S1&FT=D .

--Edcolins (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

That would be good. Even better if it can automatically detect US design patents when the country code = US and the patent number starts with 'D'. Perhaps something along the line of
{{#ifexpr|{{{country|}}}==US and {{substring|number|0|1}}==D|S1&FT=D|}}
and similar to put 'design' in the displayed text, as per GDallimore's suggestion on the other discussion page.  Stepho  talk  23:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, even better indeed. I think you should simply go ahead. Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the code and the correct place to do it is the subtemplate that actually generates the URL, which I don't have permission to alter. I've asked the guys at Template talk:Citation/patent#US design patents to do it for me.  Stepho  talk  10:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Older US patents

For older US patents, Espacenet does not have much info. So when we do {{cite patent |country=US |number=270543 |status=patent}}, it goes to here which has nothing in it. Should we use Google patent instead in such cases? If so, how can we incorporate that alternative into this template? Z22 (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It has the original document. No need to use google. GDallimore (Talk) 18:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I tried but was unable to find any link to the original document from the Espacenet link (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=270543&KC=&FT=E&locale=en_EP). Only thing I see is "Abstract not available for US270543 (A)". Could you please help me to get to the text, PDF or image files from that link? Thanks. Z22 (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

A link to the pdf is there on the lefthand side of the web page under the "Bibliographic data" panel. Clicking on the "Original document" button will lead you directly to the pdf. Boghog (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

An alternative is {{US patent|270543|src=uspto|US270,543}} which renders as US270,543. You have to click on the "images" button however to get the pdf. Finally {{US patent|270543|US270,543}} which renders as US270,543, a link to the same Google patents link that you provided above, but this template does not allow one to add bibliographic information. Boghog (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I missed that link. I guess the standard cite patent template is good enough. Thanks all. Z22 (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

URL as explicit parameter?

See the section above too.

I'm after this: http://www.google.com/patents/USD126657 (A 1940 design patent)

I want to use {{Cite patent}} rather than {{US patent}}, for consistency with other refs. Also I want to display inventor, assignee etc which {{US patent}} doesn't handle well. However I want to link to Google, which has the best copy of this patent I can't find it on Espacenet, it's in the US Patent site database but there' no content displayed.

Should this template support either an explicit URL? Or else a src= parameter for Google patents and US PTO? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

How do I cite this particular patent application?

It's US application 2013308099A1 , but Espacenet does not like it because it turns into "FT=E" parameter in the URL. If we just manually change that URL to "FT=D", it will work. Anyone know what FT=D on Espacenet means? How do I correctly use cite patent template for this case? Z22 (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Wrong link for granted patents

I used this template for a granted patent, but when I click on the resulting link to Espacenet, I am taken to the page for the patent application, not the granted patent. This can important because, for example, their titles can be different. For example:

• US patent 7076441, "Identification and tracking of persons using RFID-tagged items in store environments", published 2002-11-07, issued 2006-07-11, assigned to International Business Machines Corporation 

should link to here. Could somebody please fix this. HairyWombat 21:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The template is working fine. Directly searching Espacenet for US7076441 take you to the same page, which in turn is linked to the page that you want (see "also published as US7076441 (B2)"). Boghog (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

So the Espacenet website is wrong. I have e-mailed EPO to inform them that they have a problem. Many thanks for looking into this so promptly. HairyWombat 21:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No, there is nothing wrong. Espacenet links to the application data from which you can find all the other information you want, including a link to the granted patent. It's all there on the link you provide. You just seem to be expecting the wrong thing. For example, who cares if the title changes? It has no legal standing or relevance at all and you should never EVER try to identify a patent/application by its title alone. GDallimore (Talk) 11:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether this is wrong is a value judgment. If I ask for a particular patent and, instead, am presented with a different (related) document then, to me, that is not what I requested and so is wrong. Obviously the patent application title has no legal standing, but then neither does the entire patent application. (The granted patent has legal standing.) I assume it is not just the title that can change, but the entire document. EPO has explained in an e-mail that the main use of Espacenet is not for searching granted patents, but to allow prior art searches. For that, the patent application obviously does have relevance. This is another argument for not using Espacenet. I don't understand why you are so attached to it. HairyWombat 03:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The key point, as I and boghog have already said, is that the link is not wrong. The page is a bibliographic information page which includes links to the full text of the application as published AND the patent as granted. GDallimore (Talk) 09:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Now it is you who appears to be getting upset. Whether the link is wrong or not is still a value judgment. Espacenet clearly has some problems with US patents, and particularly with US patent applications. It is perfectly legitimate for me to question its use for these, and to suggest a switch to the USPTO website (which is definitive for US patents). I still don't understand why you are so attached to using Espacenet for US patents given the problems it clearly has. HairyWombat 17:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The patent application does have legal standing in that it determines the priority date of the granted patent. Furthermore it should be obvious there cannot be a granted patent without an application. In addition, Espacenet have sensibly chosen to organize their database according to patent families. US2002165758 and US7076441 are part of the same patent family. US2002165758 was published before US7076441 and hence US2002165758 is considered the founding member of the family and searches for either US7076441 or US2002165758 take you to US2002165758 which in turn is linked to US7076441. This is not a bug, this is by design. Finally Espacenet is not unique in the way they have organized their patent database. Both the Chemical Abstracts Service and the Derwent World Patents Index (now part of Thomson Reuters) organize patents in their databases in a similar way. Boghog (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe I covered your point earlier in this thread when I wrote:

EPO has explained in an e-mail that the main use of Espacenet is not for searching granted patents, but to allow prior art searches. For that, the patent application obviously does have relevance.

The issue is not how Espacenet organizes their system, but whether that system is useful to Wikipedia. When somebody cites a granted patent then what the unsophisticated Wikipedia reader expects is a link that takes them directly to that granted patent. For them to be taken to some other document (the patent application), which might be completely different, is misleading. I appreciate that they can get to the granted patent from the application, but Wikipedia can do better than that. Unsophisticated Wikipedia readers will not be interested in patent families, and need a link that takes them right to the granted patent. Anything else is likely to be confusing. I believe our disagreement is caused because you are only considering the usefulness of Espacenet to the patent professional. Instead, please try to view things from the perspective of somebody with no particular interest in patents. Switching to the USPTO website for US patents (and applications) will be a lot more useful to the average Wikipedia reader. HairyWombat 04:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

While the "main use" of Espacenet may be to allow prior art searches, it can also obviously be used to find granted patents, since they are also prior art. Furthermore, since granted patents are based on their respective patent applications, they cannot possibly be completely different. A granted patent may have narrower claims than the application or contain relatively minor editorial changes, but the content must remain largely the same. Finally while I appreciate that Wikipedia can provide links to granted patents, we can do better than that. We can provide a link to the patent family. (sorry, I couldn't resist ;-) A major advantage of linking to the patent family is that one can quickly determine if equivalent patents have been applied for or granted in other countries. Please keep in mind that the English Language Wikipedia has a international audience (see {{Globalize/US}}). Boghog (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not a patent professional, and so have no idea how different a granted patent can be from its application. I did fall across one example where two different applications (US2002/0165758 and US2005/0038718) appear to have resulted in a single granted patent (US7076441). However, I did not investigate to find out exactly what happened (because I don't care). Your point about globalization is a excellent one. It is, of course, possible to have our cake and to eat it too. All that is required is for the template US patent 7076441  to be modified to link to here. This is a bibliographic data page, same as the current link, and taps into the same patent family. Its big advantage is that it displays the actual granted patent, not the application, and so will not confuse Wikipedia readers who do not understand the patent process. (Note that my link is two clicks away from the application. One click produces an image of the granted patent; this is not as useful, but would still be less confusing than the current link.) HairyWombat 19:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

US2005/0038718 (to American Express) and US2002/0165758 (US7076441 to IBM Corp) while both dealing with the application of RFID technology, nevertheless belong to two completely unrelated patent families. There is no reason to investigate why these two completely unrelated applications were combined into a granted patent because it never happened.

Unfortunately the query link used by the template does not support the solution that you are proposing (e.g., US patent 7076441B2, "Identification and tracking of persons using RFID-tagged items", assigned to IBM corp ). It appears that US7076441B2 is not indexed and hence not searchable with the default search. Again, I think the advantages of linking to the patent family far out weigh any hypothetical disadvantages to linking to a granted patent in one particular country. Boghog (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

If I have understood you correctly, you are pointing out that the query string is sent to "http://worldwide.espacenet.com/textdoc...", but the URL this query then displays is "http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio...", and there is no mechanism for displaying the bibliographic data page I want using the former. I see no easy solution for this other than to abandon Espacenet for US patents in favour of USPTO, however, your point about globalization has trumped that. Bummer. HairyWombat 22:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Except, as you still refuse to accept, there is no problem. The link is not going to the "wrong" place at all, except in your mind because you expect something different.

The links take you to complete information about the patent and all related patents and applications which MUST be better from an encyclopedic perspective. Even though the destination is a bibliographic information page focusing on the application, not the patent, anything more than a cursory glance at the linked page will confirm that you have arrived at the correct information.

Fixing boghog's citation above (by removing the B2 from the number) US patent 7076441  leads you to a page where a single click takes you to either of the full texts of the original application or the granted patent. In case you've missed it, it's the line that reads "Also published as: US7076441 (B2)".

Frankly, as a research tool, as well as a tool for searching patent applications, espacenet is easily the best (free) product available.

It's good that a few minor corrections to the template have been made as the result of this discussion, but you need to accept that your main contention that the links are going to the "wrong" place is simply... wrong. Perhaps the route of your misunderstanding is that you think a patent is just a reference document like a book. This is not the case. It is a melange of technical and legal information which cannot and should not be separate from each other. GDallimore (Talk) 23:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You still seem to be missing two points; perhaps I did not explain them clearly enough:

1. Wikipedia readers are not patent professionals. They understand neither the patent process nor that a granted patent even has an application. Therefore, the fact that Espacenet is excellent s a research tool and as a tool for searching patent applications is not relevant to these users. If the citation is for a granted patent then they expect the link to go there, and not to some other document (even if it is only one click away). Yes, I did spot "Also published as: US7076441 (B2)", however, I still question whether the typical Wikipedia user wilal be able to do so.
2. The page I prefer is a bibliographic data page, same as the current link, so has all of the advantages you describe. That is to say, my preferred page also has complete information about the patent and all related patents and applications.

Try to see things from the point-of-view of somebody who knows nothing about patents. These are the people Wikipedia serves. HairyWombat 01:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

If readers can't read six lines down, they won't have checked the references in the first place and if they're that clueless about patents, any link at all is going to be confusing. Based on what you're saying, then there's no point in half of this encyclopedia. Citations don't generally explain how to use a library to obtain an offline reference, for example, but there are plenty of people who wouldn't be able to do that.

With a bit of investigation, I can see that it's technically possible to link directly to the biblio page for the granted patent with a couple of extra parameters in the link [1]. Any guesses as to what the apparently required parameter "FT=D" means? Even if we could be confident we know what FT=D means or is consistent across all patents in the database, simply adding that and the "B2&KC=B2" to the links wouldn't work for an important minority of cases where the granted patent is not the B2 publication. Adding parameters to the template to specify that it's a B2 would stump all but the most expert of editors when setting up the template in the first place - how many people would know the different between B1, B2 and B3 publications of a granted patent for example!? Can/worms/etc. GDallimore (Talk) 03:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I wrote above, "I see no easy solution for this other than to abandon Espacenet for US patents in favour of USPTO, however, ..." Also, most people have used a library (or know enough to walk in and ask a librarian); almost nobody has used a patent search system. HairyWombat 03:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

GDallimore is absolutely correct. There is no problem. As the advantages of linking to the patent family in Espacenet far outweigh any disadvantages:

[The espacenet] database is more useful than the USPTO database since it highlights related patents/applications in other countries as well as providing current status information and offers a multi-language interface (English/French/German).

Cite patent documentation

I would very strongly oppose changing the link to USPTO for US patents. Furthermore if you absolutely insist on including a link to the USPTO, this can be done with the {{USPTO Patent}} template. This discussion has gone on far too long. Please drop it. Boghog (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I wrote above, "... ,however, your point about globalization has trumped that." Did this not make clear that I no longer absolutely insist on including a link to the USPTO? If you want the discussion to drop then don't prolong it. HairyWombat 17:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Globalization or not, espacenet is a pain to deal with. I lost half an hour today trying to figure out how to fix a problem that should never have occurred. Sam Paris (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

espacenet broken?

See e.g. special:diff/652974764/652976461. Yields

An error has occurred
No specific error message has been provided.
Back to previous page
The page you tried to display caused an error.

--Jeremyb (talk) 05:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The espacenet external links works now:

• US patent 5816186, Shepherd, Charles G., "For creating two resonant frequencies resulting in a beat", issued 1998-10-06, assigned to Fox 40 International Inc. 

Probably a temporary glitch with espacenet. Boghog (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

huh, now WORKSFORME. --Jeremyb (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Template not displaying inventors, as documented

The documentation says that inventors are displayed when |invent1= and |invent2= are used, but that is not happening in this case:

Cite patent with all parameters present (but some empty)

Markup	Renders as
{{cite patent| country = US | number = 8976084 | status = | title = Portable augmented-reality head-up display device | pubdate = August 12, 2010 | gdate = | fdate = | pridate = | inventor = | invent1 = Hamdani, Rachid | invent2 = Liu, Zile | assign1 = | assign2 = | class = }}	US 8976084, Hamdani, Rachid & Liu, Zile, "Portable augmented-reality head-up display device", published August 12, 2010

Removing parameters appears to fix the problem:

Cite patent (same as immediately above, with assign and class removed – no difference)

Markup	Renders as
{{cite patent| country = US | number = 8976084 | status = | title = Portable augmented-reality head-up display device | pubdate = August 12, 2010 | gdate = | fdate = | pridate = | inventor = | invent1 = Hamdani, Rachid | invent2 = Liu, Zile }}	US 8976084, Hamdani, Rachid & Liu, Zile, "Portable augmented-reality head-up display device", published August 12, 2010

Cite patent (same as immediately above, with inventor removed – inventor names display, and harv CITEREF appears)

Markup	Renders as
{{cite patent| country = US | number = 8976084 | status = | title = Portable augmented-reality head-up display device | pubdate = August 12, 2010 | gdate = | fdate = | pridate = | invent1 = Hamdani, Rachid | invent2 = Liu, Zile }}	US 8976084, Hamdani, Rachid & Liu, Zile, "Portable augmented-reality head-up display device", published August 12, 2010

Cite patent with all unused parameters omitted (works great)

Markup	Renders as
{{cite patent | country = US | number = 8976084 | title = Portable augmented-reality head-up display device | pubdate = August 12, 2010 | invent1 = Hamdani, Rachid | invent2 = Liu, Zile }}	US 8976084, Hamdani, Rachid & Liu, Zile, "Portable augmented-reality head-up display device", published August 12, 2010

It appears to be the case that omitting one or more parameters, possibly |inventor=, makes the inventors display. Including those blank parameters appears to make the inventors vanish, which is contrary to the documentation. What am I failing to understand?

The version of the citation with blank parameters also does not appear to generate a harv CITEREF value. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

|inventor= was and still is intended to store multiple authors. Hence it makes no sense to use |inventor= and |inventor1= at the same time. Also if one uses numbered inventor parameters, one is limited to a maximum of four inventors. |inventor= allows one to specify more than four inventors. What this template needs is a |vinventors= parameter ;-) Boghog (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. I have updated the documentation. It does not make sense to me that a blank parameter would override the display of another parameter, but that is how the template currently behaves.

I have modified this template's sandbox so that |inventor= will be displayed if it is populated, otherwise |invent1= will display. I did not fix the existing problem of redundant display of |inventor= followed by |invent2= and subsequent inventors. That would need some error checking and a tracking category.

Cite patent sandbox (inventor blank, invent1 and invent2 populated)

Markup	Renders as
{{cite patent/sandbox| country = US | number = 8976084 | status = | title = Portable augmented-reality head-up display device | pubdate = August 12, 2010 | gdate = | fdate = | pridate = | inventor = | invent1 = Hamdani, Rachid | invent2 = Liu, Zile }}	US 8976084, Hamdani, Rachid & Liu, Zile, "Portable augmented-reality head-up display device", published August 12, 2010

Cite patent sandbox (inventor populated, invent1 and invent2 blank)

Markup	Renders as
{{cite patent/sandbox| country = US | number = 8976084 | status = | title = Portable augmented-reality head-up display device | pubdate = August 12, 2010 | gdate = | fdate = | pridate = | inventor = Hamdani, Rachid; Liu, Zile | invent1 = | invent2 = }}	US 8976084, Hamdani, Rachid; Liu, Zile, "Portable augmented-reality head-up display device", published August 12, 2010

Cite patent sandbox (inventor populated, invent1 and invent2 also populated – same display as current template)

Markup	Renders as
{{cite patent/sandbox| country = US | number = 8976084 | status = | title = Portable augmented-reality head-up display device | pubdate = August 12, 2010 | gdate = | fdate = | pridate = | inventor = Hamdani, Rachid; Liu, Zile | invent1 = Joe Smith | invent2 = Jack Jones }}	US 8976084, Hamdani, Rachid; Liu, Zile & Jack Jones, "Portable augmented-reality head-up display device", published August 12, 2010

Cite patent current version (inventor populated, invent1 and invent2 also populated – same display as sandbox)

Markup	Renders as
{{cite patent| country = US | number = 8976084 | status = | title = Portable augmented-reality head-up display device | pubdate = August 12, 2010 | gdate = | fdate = | pridate = | inventor = Hamdani, Rachid; Liu, Zile | invent1 = Joe Smith | invent2 = Jack Jones }}	US 8976084, Hamdani, Rachid; Liu, Zile & Jack Jones, "Portable augmented-reality head-up display device", published August 12, 2010

Should I update the template to the behavior shown above? – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I have updated the template to the behavior shown above. Let me know if you observe any problems caused by this change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

TemplateData badly broken

The TemplateData for this template is quite inaccurate; all of the parameter names it lists as canonical are not supported by this template at all, only used in passing the values in question on to {{Citation/patent}} —SamB (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

What's the difference between the template supporting the parameters directly and passing them to another template? What is your proposed fix? Can you point us to TemplateData documentation that explains how TemplateData is supposed to be constructed? I have asked this question a few times in other venues and have not received an answer. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The espacenet |FT= parameter

{{editprotect}}

I've been trying to get the link in
NL application 1010697C2, Willem De Jong, "Serving tray with central hub on underside to allow gripping with fingers", published 2000-04-10 
to work. The Template:Cite patent external link string output is
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=NL&NR=1010697C2&KC=&FT=E&locale=en_EP
However, the string that works is
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=NL&NR=1010697C2&KC=&FT=D&locale=en_EP
The only difference between the two strings is the espacenet |FT= parameter. For some reason, Template:Cite patent results in the |FT= parameter at Espacenet to default to FT=E. I need Template:Cite patent to allow me to set the |FT= parameter to be entered into the espacenet URL as FT=D. Would you please add a parameter to the Template:Cite patent that allows setting the espacenet |FT= parameter. I don't know what espacenet's FT stands for (It could mean Filing Time? Filing Transition?). Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The template is not obviously the problem, and it does not default to FT=E as you suggest. Hover over the actual link and you'll see it's of the form http://worldwide.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=NL1010697C2 with the espacenet server reforming it. I do not know why this link is being reformed incorrectly (perhaps because it's in Dutch (D), rather than English (E)?) and have been unable to find a number combination that works. GDallimore (Talk) 10:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

thank you for reporting. I will contact the Espacenet experts. --Wikinaut (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

FT stands for Format and tells if the document number (NR) is in EPOQUE format or DOCDB format. The parameter can have two values, E for EPOQUE (which is default) and D for DOCDB. Abruunprv (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

What about Cite trademark?

There appears to be no "Cite trademark" template. Shouldn't there be? Jeh (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Names

In contrast to every other modern CITE template, this template uses a single "name" parameter. This breaks the ref=harv system. I strongly suggest we move to the first(n)/last(n) system used in other cites. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Reverting URL param addition

While I support the addition of an explicit URL parameter, I've reverted the change form April 6 as it breaks the existing functionality- if you don't supply a URL parameter, no link is made as an "empty" url is passed to the (citation/patent) parent template. --PresN 02:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The new update fixes the problem, thank you! --PresN 17:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Horizontal Format

I edited the template documentation to add the full parameter set in horizontal format, plus a few other elements. The "most commonly used parameters in vertical format" is currently the same as the full parameters, but I thought someone might want to omit at least a couple, like "class" and "url" (since that's apparently only for exceptional circumstances). --tronvillain (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Option to display filing date

Sometimes it's useful or relevant for a particular reference to have the filing date specified, since that might be what is being compared in the article. Can we add an option to have at least the month & year of filing shown in a less-condensed manner? For an example on the article section I'm working on:

US patent 4062180, Meshi, Joseph & Ponsor, Jeffrey R., "Electronic chess clock", issued 1977-12-13. Originally filed 31 July 1975.

Or whatever is literature-appropriate. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Coding

I'm not sure what the intent of this template is; I suspect it should link to a patent at Google Patents. The way it's coded now, it doesn't seem to do that. Instead, it seems to function just like {{USPTO Patent}}. The name of this template (Googpat) is also not intuitiveley found. It is not mentioned in {{Google templates}} nor categorised as Category:Google templates. One article linked to it, Onion routing, which I corrected.

I suggest to move this template to {{Google patents}}. The code could be like this:

[http://www.google.com/patents?id={{{1}}} Patent no. {{{1}}}] at [[Google Patents]]<noinclude>
[[Category:Google templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]</noinclude>

Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Note - somehow this comment was weirdly moved to its own talk page at Template talk:Cite patent/sandbox2. It is relevant here so I moved it here, and am suggesting deletion for that other page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

US Design patents?

Is there any way to cite a US design patent?

I'm searching for (and have had trouble finding) a patent related to an aircraft, the Northrop N-102 Fang. This was the subject of a design patent, US Des 180,297, of 1957 Northrop_N-102_Fang_patent_1.gif. So far I can't cite this easily with our template (I can force the URL in but I suspect the metadata would be wrong), nor even search it through Espacenet or Google. In the main patent space, this number is that of a Victorian farm gate. Northrop Aviation do seem to have used the line drawing design patents [2] for a few aircraft designs - possibly when their new delta wing design was worthy of protection, but when clear prior art would prevent the assigning of a more robust patent otherwise. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Which patent mirroring service to use?

Currently this template creates automatic links to Espacenet, which is a service of the European Patent Organisation. At a glance their website seemed more difficult for me to read than the Google Patents website, and I wondered why that service was preferred. I read through the talk archives.

@GDallimore: seems to be a Wikipedian and patent attorney but he has not been here since November 2014. This user favored Espacenet and created {{Cite patent}} in March 2007 to link to that database. Some other users suggested linking to United States Patent and Trademark Office.

After looking a bit more, I agree that although Google Patents are easier to read, Espacenet is a better choice for now. It has more comprehensive information plus also Wikipedia generally links to noncommercial services unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. This discussion is raised from time to time and for now I see no reason to change. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I would like to see this easily controllable by a clear parameter to the template. Sometimes one favours the other as a clear source for readers (we're an encyclopedia rather than a patent library), but the only way at present is to shoe-horn in the URL. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Always has a ref=harv, which is bad

Currently the template adds a ref=harv or similar by default. This can be turned off by manually inserting ref=. But this is not clear, it's normally invisible.

If you have any number of common tools installed, the dangling REF will show up as an error, which is annoying for patents that are in the body, Further Reading, or like.

I think we should add the |ref= to the basic template so that it is obvious to the user that it exists and can be more easily modified.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Date Format

I recently did a {{cite patent}} on an article (Jose F. Caro), and I added |df= dmy-all. Using |df with other templates has never been a problem, however, {{cite patent}} doesn't acknowledge it. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The template is also ignored by {{Use dmy dates}} and similar. It would be really useful if it was folded into the same system as most of the the other cite templates instead of merely looking similar for a few fields.  Stepho  talk  21:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It's the other way 'round; this template ignores the {{Use xxx dates}} templates.

It is highly unlikely that {{cite patent}} will be made a cs1 template. There are too many unique parameters here that have no equivalents in cs1.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Expiry date

Could an expiry parameter be added, like |exdate= ? Patents, like [3] can expire and it would be useful if there was a way to note this.--Auric talk 12:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Espacenet - 0 results found

Wonder if something has changed; this example no longer works:

• US 20030196096, Sutton, James A., "Microcode patch authentication" 
• {{cite patent|country=US|number=20030196096|inventor=Sutton, James A.|title=Microcode patch authentication|pdate=2003-10-16|fdate=2002-04-12}}

—Sladen (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

ref=harv

@Trappist the monk: should |Ref={{{ref|harv}}} be updated to |Ref={{{ref|}}} in this one? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 May 2021: remove |ref=harv code

Please consider deleting:

|Ref={{{ref|harv}}}

Cite patent has no (documented) support for a ref parameter, so users should not enter one. And |ref=harv is now the CS1|2 default, so setting harv as this template's default is superfluous; further, there are discussions (e.g. here) about showing error messages when |ref=harv is used. Thanks. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems that other templates, e.g. {{US patent application}}, do the very same thing this template does: accepts an undocumented |ref= value and passes it to this one. The default case (when the user hasn't specified a value, i.e., the usual case) causes it to set |ref=harv when calling this template. So, maybe instead of deleting, per my request above, it's better to

change it to:

|Ref={{{ref|}}}

to allow for those users who set undocumented parameters? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

For this to work, I believe that changes would have to be made to {{Cite patent/core}} as well. It shouldn't be too tricky, but it would have to be tested. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It is not really clear to me what it is that you want. Isn't it already the case that the template creates a default CITEREF anchor ID when given the appropriate name and date parameters? I grabbed this template from the template's documentation page:

{{cite patent
| country = WO
| number = 2005083605
| status = application
| title = Insurance fee calculation device, insurance fee calculation program, insurance fee calculation method, and insurance fee calculation system
| pubdate = 2005-09-09
| fdate = 2005-02-24
| pridate = 2004-02-26
| invent1 = Kozakai Toshihiko
| assign1 = Aioi Insurance Co Ltd
}}

It renders this:

WO application 2005083605, Kozakai Toshihiko, "Insurance fee calculation device, insurance fee calculation program, insurance fee calculation method, and insurance fee calculation system", published 2005-09-09, assigned to Aioi Insurance Co Ltd 

and under the bonnet, this:

'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000049-QINU`"'<span class="citation patent"id="CITEREFKozakai_Toshihiko2005">[https://worldwide.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=WO2005083605 WO&#32;application 2005083605],&#32;Kozakai Toshihiko,&#32;"Insurance fee calculation device, insurance fee calculation program, insurance fee calculation method, and insurance fee calculation system",&#32;published 2005-09-09,&#32; assigned to Aioi Insurance Co Ltd</span><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Apatent&rft.applnumber=2005083605&rft.cc=WO&rft.title=Insurance+fee+calculation+device%2C+insurance+fee+calculation+program%2C+insurance+fee+calculation+method%2C+and+insurance+fee+calculation+system&rft.inventor=Kozakai+Toshihiko&rft.assignee=Aioi+Insurance+Co+Ltd&rft.appldate=2005-02-24&rft.pubdate=2005-09-09&rft.prioritydate=2004-02-26"><span style="display: none;">&nbsp;</span></span>

Looks to me like id="CITEREFKozakai_Toshihiko2021" is correct and there is no |ref=harv in the template call (except that the date part is wrong – but you didn't ask about that).

This template is not a cs1|2 template so is not beholden to the rules that govern those templates.

change it to: |Ref={{{ref|}}} to allow for those users who set undocumented parameters? Did that question get written as you wanted it to be written? Seems incomplete to me because editors can set |ref= to anything that they want. What is it that you are really asking for? The only thing that I see that this template does not do, when compared to cs1|2 templates, is support the keyword none (this template turns that into id="none").

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, User:Trappist the monk and User talk:Jonesey95. Apparently I can't read templates very well. What I wanted was to help clear up any documentation using (or hinting at the possible use of) |ref=harv before red error messages start getting displayed for such usages. I came here following a (probably too-broad) search for such things. I should probably just close this request and make sure I'm looking at documentation and not code. Sorry for the bother. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Declining edit request per the above comment. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I have hacked {{cite patent/sandbox}} and {{cite patent/core/sandbox}} so that the templates act a bit more like cs1|2 templates with regard to anchor ID creation. Examples at this version of my sandbox. This also fixes the incorrect year portion of the CITEREF anchor ID noted above.

Without objection, I shall update the live templates in the same way.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I like it, thanks! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Link URL from title rather than just as a bare numbered link?

Can we add the link to the title when a url is included but there's no patent number? Or maybe make it error? Otherwise it looks like this: [4], "Water key for brass wind musical instruments", issued 1970-05-12 

Mvolz (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, I just noticed this issue in this article because the EL symbol in the ref list stood out when I glance at the references. We shouldn't be displaying a numbered EL like this. I fixed this article by adding the patent number. I don't know much about this template; the doc says the patent number is not required but only suggested. Can you add a Category:Pages using cite patent without patent number? There may be more cases that can be fixed easily by adding the number. MB 17:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Needs a period at the end

Citations on Wikipedia normally end with a period, but this template doesn't. Can we add one? Kaldari (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

{{Citation}}, on which this template is based, does not supply a terminal period. If you want one, use |postscript=. Examples:

Cite patent, standard usage

Markup	Renders as
{{cite patent| country = US | number = 8976084 | status = | title = Portable augmented-reality head-up display device | pubdate = August 12, 2010 | gdate = | fdate = | pridate = | inventor = Hamdani, Rachid; Liu, Zile | invent1 = Joe Smith | invent2 = Jack Jones }}	US 8976084, Hamdani, Rachid; Liu, Zile & Jack Jones, "Portable augmented-reality head-up display device", published August 12, 2010

Cite patent with postscript

Markup	Renders as
{{cite patent| country = US | number = 8976084 | status = | title = Portable augmented-reality head-up display device | pubdate = August 12, 2010 | gdate = | fdate = | pridate = | inventor = Hamdani, Rachid; Liu, Zile | invent1 = Joe Smith | invent2 = Jack Jones | postscript = . }}	US 8976084, Hamdani, Rachid; Liu, Zile & Jack Jones, "Portable augmented-reality head-up display device", published August 12, 2010.

I suppose that you could try to gain consensus to add the period by default, but I don't know how many people are watching this talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea. --Edcolins (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I second this it seems most of the other {{cite xyz}} templates do this Ianmc (talk) 09:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

assign or assignee?

Both of these appear to work when present as isolated parameters when not numbered (ie assignx/assigneex).

{{cite patent|country=US|number=5175853|title=Transparent system interrupt|inventor1=James Kardach|inventor2=Gregory Mathews|inventor3=Cau Nguyen|inventor4=Sung S. Cho|inventor5=Kameswaran Sivamani|inventor6=David Vannier|inventor7=Shing Wong|inventor8=Edward Zager|assign=[[Intel Corporation]]|status=patent|pridate=1990-10-09|fdate=1991-11-06|pubdate=1992-12-29|gdate=1992-12-29}}

US patent 5175853, "Transparent system interrupt", published 1992-12-29, issued 1992-12-29, assigned to Intel Corporation 

{{cite patent|country=US|number=5175853|title=Transparent system interrupt|inventor1=James Kardach|inventor2=Gregory Mathews|inventor3=Cau Nguyen|inventor4=Sung S. Cho|inventor5=Kameswaran Sivamani|inventor6=David Vannier|inventor7=Shing Wong|inventor8=Edward Zager|assignee=[[Intel Corporation]]|status=patent|pridate=1990-10-09|fdate=1991-11-06|pubdate=1992-12-29|gdate=1992-12-29}}

US patent 5175853, "Transparent system interrupt", published 1992-12-29, issued 1992-12-29, assigned to Intel Corporation 

should assign and assignee be added to the Assignee - first template data parameters?

Skullcinema (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Questions

"The number parameter must be the patent number or patent application publication number without any intervening commas or other punctuation (e.g. 2135432, not 2,135,432; likewise, 2005108455, not 2005/108455). You may need to experiment with the precise form for published US patent applications or PCT applications, which are slightly unusual. Help for getting the correct number format can be found here."

These instructions should be expanded, they fail to note:

Should it include trailing letters, like "3453601A"?

Should it include the country code, like "US3453601"?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

"Assign" language is wrong except for US patents

The Assign parameter and the output "assigned to xxx" applies to US patents only and is legally incorrect in almost every other country of the world. In the US, every patent application is required to be filed initially in the personal name of the inventor, with the ultimate owner (often a company such as the inventor's employer) taking an assignment of the application - hence "assign" or "assignee". Nowhere else does that; instead the patent application is filed directly in the name of company or other entity that owns the rights. That entity is called the patent "applicant", and "assignee" is a non-existent concept. "Applicant" is standard terminology at the EPO and pretty well every other non-US patent office.

Another parameter "Applicant" needs to be added, with some suitable output such as "patent applicant: xxx". Alternately, change the Assign parameters to Applicant/Assign, with output "Applicant/assignee: xxx". MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Indonesian patents

Does anybody know how to use this template with Indonesian patents like:

https://pdki-indonesia.dgip.go.id/detail/A00200803695?type=di&keyword=mobil

Espacenet doesn't seem to know anything about them. Tried searching different ways, including by an inventor's last name but the results don't show that patent.  Stepho  talk  04:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Is what you are looking for US design patent USD611388? I just searched the second designer's name in Google patents (oddly its search engine is better than Espacenet). Skullcinema (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC).

Actually, it was your own addition of many Indonesian patents that prompted my question. Your additions are good and welcome but I wanted to wrap them in this template. But it seems that this template deals mainly (only?) with Espacenet and that Espacenet doesn't deal with Indonesian patents.  Stepho  talk  10:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I think you may have me confused with another editor? I have never added any Indonesian patent reference to WP. In general there is nothing to stop you using the Cite patent template, just complete the fields as for any other patent and use url= to get the correct link to the Indonesian patent authority's webpage for the particular patent you are referencing. At least that is what I would do. Skullcinema (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)