{"id":33882,"date":"2022-01-11T10:21:41","date_gmt":"2022-01-11T15:21:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ipo.org\/?page_id=33882"},"modified":"2026-03-27T08:21:28","modified_gmt":"2026-03-27T12:21:28","slug":"the-ip-language-curmudgeon-archives","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/ipo.org\/index.php\/the-ip-language-curmudgeon-archives\/","title":{"rendered":"The IP Language Curmudgeon Archives"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

March 27, 2026<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cORDINARY AND CUSTOMARY\u201d OR \u201cPLAIN AND ORDINARY\u201d MEANING?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Patent Claim Construction<\/em> \u2014 A READER believes the established standard for construing patent claims could have shifted a bit because of an incorrect choice of words. In its classic Phillips<\/em> opinion (en banc<\/em> 2005), the Federal Circuit said that to construe a claim you use the \u201cordinary and customary\u201d meaning of the claim terms. USPTO rules also refer to \u201cordinary and customary\u201d meaning. E.g., 37 CFR \u00a7 42.100(b). Several recent opinions by courts and USPTO judges, however, have used a \u201cplain and ordinary\u201d meaning standard.<\/p>\n

Are the two phrases precisely the same? Merriam-Webster doesn\u2019t list \u201cplain\u201d as a synonym for \u201ccustomary.\u201d Some doubt might exist about whether the phrases are identical. Judges should use the same words every time to describe how they construe claims. Uncertainty causes litigation.<\/p>\n

Quote of the Week<\/em> \u2014 \u201cThe only kind of writing is rewriting.\u201d \u2014 Ernest Hemingway<\/p>\n

Comments are invited.\u00a0 Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

March 20, 2026<\/em><\/p>\n

COMMENTS FROM READERS, ETC.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cLimitation\u201d<\/em> \u2014 Readers questioned my preference for \u201climitation\u201d over \u201celement\u201d when discussing patent claims. I prefer it because the Federal Circuit uses it. One reader said he cringes when he sees it. He\u2019ll use \u201cfeature.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cFed. Cir.\u201d<\/em> \u2014 JEFF INGERMAN thought the abbreviation for \u201cFederal Circuit\u201d should be \u201cF. Cir.\u201d According to The Bluebook<\/em>, however, it\u2019s \u201cFed. Cir.\u201d, perhaps inconsistent with the abbreviation for \u201cFederal Reporter,\u201d which is \u201cF.\u201d (and F.2d, F.3d, and F.4th ).<\/p>\n

New Bluebook<\/em> \u2014 The Harvard Law Review Association has published the 22nd<\/sup> edition of The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation. <\/em>It\u2019s the first revision since 2020. The details are reorganized but still mind-numbing.<\/p>\n

\u201cOccam\u2019s Razor\u201d<\/em> \u2014 A reader said BRYAN GARNER distorted the historic meaning of the term by expanding it to cover legal writing and advocacy. That could be, but the policy of shaving away whatever is unnecessary is a good one in almost any context. See my March 6 column.<\/p>\n

Suggestions for future columns are invited.\u00a0 Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address. Click here<\/u> for the Curmudgeon Archives.<\/p>\n

Your friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/p>\n

March 13, 2026<\/em><\/p>\n

DON\u2019T WRITE ILLITERATE EMAILS<\/strong><\/p>\n

The omnipresent BRYAN GARNER believes you shouldn\u2019t stray far from standard, educated English in your emails. He thinks sloppiness in grammar, spelling, and punctuation in emails leads to laziness in editing and proofreading more formal communications.<\/p>\n

The Wall Street Journal<\/em> took it further in its March 11 article, \u201cWhy the Global Elite Gave Up on Spelling and Grammar.\u201d The WSJ reproduced emails by famous people. It concluded, \u201cThe rich and powerful share a seeming disregard for proper English.\u201d DEBORAH TANNEN, professor at Georgetown, said disregarding spelling and grammar conveys, \u201cI\u2019m important, you\u2019re not so I don\u2019t have to bother\u201d or \u201cWe\u2019re so friendly, I don\u2019t have to worry . . .\u201d. The Curmudgeon tries to use proper English in all communication. That\u2019s what IP professionals expect.<\/p>\n

Quote of the Week<\/em> \u2014 \u201cThe Oxford comma is what separates us from the animals.\u201d \u2014 Author unknown.
\nNext week we\u2019ll catch up on reader comments. Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

March 6, 2026<\/em><\/p>\n

KEEPING IT SIMPLE: \u201cOCCAM\u2019S RAZOR\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Shaving Away \u2014<\/em> In a recent post, BRYAN GARNER expanded the principle known as \u201cOccam\u2019s razor\u201d to cover legal writing. It\u2019s\u00a0a rule from a 14th<\/sup> century philosopher that the\u00a0simplest theory, explanation, or argument usually is the correct one; you should \u201cshave away\u201d whatever is unnecessary. That principle is followed by many scientists and problem solvers. Garner applies it to legal advocacy and writing too.<\/p>\n

Last Week<\/em> \u2014 I published a table of preferred words and phrases. \u201cFederal Circuit\u201d was preferred over \u201cCAFC.\u201d Readers asked for more explanation.\u00a0 HOWARD MARKEY, first chief judge of the court in 1982, used the name Federal Circuit so people would understand that the court was on the same high level as the regional U.S. Courts of Appeals. Today\u2019s Federal Circuit judges still seem to prefer that name. You can abbreviate it \u201cFed. Cir.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u00a0Quote of the Week\u2014<\/em> \u201cBrevity is the Soul of Wit\u201d \u2014 William Shakespeare, Hamlet<\/em><\/p>\n

Comments are invited. Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

February 27, 2026<\/em><\/p>\n

BETTER IP AND LEGAL TERMINOLOGY<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

\u201cThe power of clear statement is the great power of the bar.\u201d\u00a0 \u2014 Daniel Webster<\/p>\n

Suggestions for future columns are invited. Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

February 20, 2026<\/em><\/p>\n

LET\u2019S FORGET THE TERM \u201cSOFT IP\u201d; ALSO, WRITERS ARE READERS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Soft IP<\/em>\u00a0\u2013 Reader BILL TOTH suggests moving away from saying \u201csoft IP,\u201d which sometimes is used to refer to non-patent IP including trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. \u00a0It\u2019s not a very descriptive term and there\u2019s no precise definition for it. \u00a0Bill says,\u00a0\u201cI have rarely, if ever, found a context where . . . the term \u2018soft IP\u2019 clarified, rather than confused, the conversation.\u201d The Curmudgeon agrees. The fact that patent specialists usually have science or engineering degrees doesn\u2019t mean that patent issues are \u201charder.\u201d Many non-patent IP issues are highly complex. If you need to use a label for an area of IP, just call it copyright, trademark, trade secret, or patent, etc.<\/p>\n

Be a Reader<\/em>\u00a0\u2013 BRYAN GARNER and other writing experts recommend reading more outside your profession to become a better writer. Voracious readers are exposed to diverse sentence structures and writing styles. They develop deep vocabulary too, which is a mark of a good writer. Neurological studies have shown a strong correlation between reading and writing. Of course, as once observed by Supreme Court Justice and humorist ANTONIN SCALIA, if you read too many tabloid newspapers, you may write like them.<\/p>\n

Comments are encouraged. Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

February 13, 2026<\/em><\/p>\n

TIPS AND TRICKS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Long Sentences<\/em> \u2014 Break them up: (1) by splitting them into two or more sentences separated by periods or semicolons; (2) by replacing commas with em dashes; or (3) by finding the key portion of the sentence and moving it to the end, introduced by a colon.<\/p>\n

Better Words<\/em> \u2014One READER sees documents addressed to the USPTO that begin with \u201cDear Sir.\u201d He suggests \u201cDear Director,\u201d \u201cDear Commissioner,\u201d or \u201cDear Examiner.\u201d\u00a0 Another reader sees \u201cthat\u201d being used to refer to a person<\/em> previously mentioned in a sentence. Use \u201cwho\u201d for people.\u00a0 She\u2019s the one who<\/em> invented it.<\/p>\n

Edit, Edit <\/em>\u2014 I quoted the \u201cfamous\u2019 bank robber Willie Sutton. A friendly reader (who said he\u2019s a curmudgeon too) suggested \u201cnotorious.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cHelpful<\/em>\u201d Tips \u2014 Can a tip be unhelpful? Just say \u201ctips,\u201d or \u201chints.\u201d<\/p>\n

Quote of the Week<\/em> \u2014 \u201cWriting, the art of communicating thoughts to the mind through the eye, is the greatest invention of the world . . ..\u201d \u2014 ABRAHAM LINCOLN<\/p>\n

Comments are encouraged. Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

February 6, 2026<\/em><\/p>\n

WHERE TO FIND WRITING EXPERTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Excellent Book<\/em> \u2014 Zen and the Art of Persuasive Writing <\/em>was published last month by DAVID WEINZWEIG. He\u2019s a Vice Chief Judge of the Arizona Court of Appeals. His book is practical as well as entertaining. Chapter headings (\u201cmantras\u201d) include: Be Aware of the Audience; Be Clear and Concrete; Be Concise; Be Cohesive and Coherent; Be Compelling; <\/em>and Be Credible.<\/em> It\u2019s on Amazon for $59.95, hard cover, 321 pages.<\/p>\n

Other Judges<\/em> \u2014 Several prominent members of the judiciary have published books and articles on writing \u2014 for instance, ROBERT BACHARACH, 10th<\/sup> U.S. Circuit; RUGGERO ALDISERT, formerly 3rd<\/sup> U.S. Circuit; and, last but not least, U.S. Supreme Court Justices ELENA KAGAN and the late ANTONIN SCALIA.<\/p>\n

Why the Courts?<\/em> \u2014 The famous bank robber WILLIE SUTTON, when asked why he robbed banks, replied, \u201cThat\u2019s where the money is.\u201d\u00a0 Courts are places where writers are. Writing is their stock in trade.<\/p>\n

Comments are encouraged. Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

January 30, 2026<\/em><\/p>\n

OTHER COMMONLY MISSPELLED OR INCORRECT WORDS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Continued from last week. Most items below are from readers JON PUTNAM and JOHN MOLENDA.<\/p>\n

Jibe, not Jive<\/em> \u2014 Even senior lawyers often say, \u201cThose arguments don\u2019t jive.\u201d They should say, \u201cdon\u2019t jibe.\u201d \u201cJibe\u201d means exist in harmony. \u201cJive\u201d is a style of music or playful talk.<\/p>\n

Judgment, not Judgement (US)<\/em> \u2014 \u201cJudgment\u201d is the standard US spelling. In the UK, \u201cjudgement\u201d is more common, except in legal proceedings.<\/p>\n

Home in, not Hone in<\/em> \u2014 Do you hear people say, \u201cHone in on the target?\u201d\u00a0 They mean \u201cHome in.\u201d\u00a0 A missile homes in on its target. Hone means to sharpen.<\/p>\n

Lax or Lackadaisical?<\/em> \u2014 Some speakers and writers mistakenly treat them as interchangeable, but they have separate origins and meanings. \u201cLax\u201d means not strict. \u201cLackadaisical\u201d means listless or lazy in attitude.<\/p>\n

Pronouncing Et Cetera<\/em> \u2014 The only standard US pronunciation is et-SET-uh-ruh. In times past, at least, many people were incorrectly pronouncing it ek-SET-uh-ruh. The abbreviation is \u201cetc.\u201d (always with a period).<\/p>\n

Comments are encouraged. Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

January 23, 2026<\/em><\/p>\n

THREE EMBARRASSING MISSPELLINGS IN IP AND LEGAL WRITING<\/strong><\/p>\n

Advance Notice, not Advanced<\/em> Notice<\/em> \u2014 People know that the adjective \u201cadvance\u201d means \u201cahead of time.\u201d And they know the meaning of \u201cadvanced.\u201d But somehow, engineers and lawyers are writing, for example: \u201cAdvanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.\u201d Maybe AI will help.<\/p>\n

Rein In, not Reign In<\/em> \u2014 The correct phrase for bringing something under control is\u00a0\u201crein in.\u201d It\u2019s an allusion to pulling on the reins of a horse.\u00a0\u201cReign\u201d means to hold office as a monarch or the like. Several recent court opinions have mistakenly used \u201creign\u201d for \u201crein.\u201d MARK LEMLEY once said his students were brilliant in law but clueless about rein and reign.<\/p>\n

Rescission<\/em> \u2014 According to BRYAN GARNER, \u201cRescission is the standard . . . and preferable spelling.\u201d The variants recision, recission, and rescision are incorrect or less preferred, but they appear in articles and briefs. Courts, though, almost always get it right. (The verb is rescind.)<\/p>\n

Comments are encouraged. Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

January 16, 2026<\/em><\/p>\n

MAKING THE STYLE OF PTAB OPINIONS MORE LIKE COURT OPINIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n

The USPTO\u2019s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) opinions and decisions might be easier to read if they followed the style of Federal Circuit and Supreme Court opinions. (The Curmudgeon looks only at language matters.)<\/p>\n

Names of the Parties<\/em> \u2014 PTAB opinions refer throughout to \u201cPetitioner\u201d and \u201cPatent Owner.\u201d Court opinions are written using the names of the parties or abbreviated party names throughout. This can help the reader quickly grasp which party is asserting a position.<\/p>\n

\u201cPrecedential\u201d and \u201cInformative<\/em>\u201d \u2014 These are designations for decisions and opinions that the PTAB considers out of the ordinary.\u00a0 \u201cPrecedential\u201d is used by courts, but \u201cInformative\u201d is a poor word choice. Every decision is informative to some degree. How about \u201cSignificant\u201d?<\/p>\n

Paper Numbers<\/em> \u2014 A PTAB final decision can be cluttered with hundreds of cumbersome citations to paper numbers. Citation forms used by courts are less cumbersome. Is it possible to simplify PTAB citations? Readers may have ideas.<\/p>\n

Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

January 9, 2026<\/em><\/p>\n

CAN IP WRITERS USE JOURNALISM\u2019S \u201cINVERTED PYRAMID\u201d?<\/strong><\/p>\n

What is it?<\/em> \u2014 Most news stories follow a 3-part \u201cinverted pyramid\u201d formula. The top, widest part gives the key info. A narrower, middle part provides supporting details in diminishing order of importance. The narrowest, final part has material that editors can cut easily.<\/p>\n

Origin? \u2014<\/em> \u00a0Some historians say the formula evolved when the telegraph was new and unreliable. A story\u2019s critical portions were transmitted first for fear the signal might be lost.<\/p>\n

Suitable for IP Writing?<\/em> \u2014The inverted pyramid is good for engaging readers early and letting them drop out along the way without missing key points. It may be suitable for IP memos and news releases. Federal Circuit opinions employ some aspects of inverted pyramid style. In the opening paragraphs, opinions tell you whether the tribunal below is affirmed or reversed and some of the issues. In persuasive IP writing, however, you must have reasoning and may need a conclusion at the end. See \u201cInverted Pyramid\u201d in Wikipedia<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Happy New Year,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

December 19, 2025<\/em><\/p>\n

MY IP WORD OF THE YEAR: \u201cSTORYTELLING\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

2025\u2019s Top Word<\/em> \u2014 Corporate America has discovered what leading IP advocates have long known: storytelling is an essential ingredient in persuasive writing and speaking. See my column of November 7 in the Curmudgeon Archives.<\/p>\n

Last month The Wall Street Journal<\/em> reported that companies are seeking to hire \u201cstorytellers.\u201d The percentage of LinkedIn job postings that include the term \u201cstoryteller\u201d has doubled this year. On Tuesday evening in Washington, DC, the IPO Education Foundation\u2019s Executive of the Year, WNBA Commissioner CATHY ENGLEBERT, used the word in describing how her sports league has employed branding<\/em> to realize explosive growth.<\/p>\n

Sloppy Runner-up<\/em> \u2014 Merriam-Webster editors have chosen\u00a0AI slop<\/em>\u00a0as their 2025 Word of the Year. They define it as \u201cdigital content of low quality that is produced usually in quantity by means of artificial intelligence.\u201d Are human writers prejudiced against the quality of AI-generated material?\u00a0 Time will tell.<\/p>\n

Ideas for 2026 columns are welcome. Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

December 12, 2025<\/em><\/p>\n

ENTRENCHED PATENT TERMS NOT TO LOVE<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cClaim Construction\u201d<\/em>\u2014 I don\u2019t love this phrase, which was frozen into place by the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s 1996\u00a0Markman<\/em>\u00a0ruling. A layperson might believe a court is constructing (building) a claim, not construing it. In Europe they say \u201cclaim interpretation.\u201d The layperson knows the meaning of \u201cinterpretation\u201d instantly.<\/p>\n

\u201cAffirmed\u201d\u2014\u00a0<\/em>This word may cause head scratching by people reading their first court opinion. Is the appeals court approving a lower court judgment or testifying to something? Newspapers simply say \u201cupheld.\u201d In the UK they say \u201cthe appeal is denied.\u201d<\/p>\n

Acronyms\u2014\u00a0<\/em>Except for \u201cMPEP,\u201d no U.S. patent prosecution acronym comes to mind for which I feel affection. New acronyms just in the past three months (new to me anyway) are SMEDs, the ASAP! program, and ASRN notices. NPRM is older, but prominent now.<\/p>\n

These terms won\u2019t change any time soon, but BRYAN GARNER says time for changing usage is measured in decades. Let\u2019s work on it.<\/p>\n

Words you don\u2019t love? Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

December 5, 2025<\/em><\/p>\n

LANGUAGE POTPOURRI<\/strong><\/p>\n

Oxford Comma Cont\u2019d <\/em>\u2014 Reader BRAD HATTENBACH wonders why the publishing industry decided 15 years ago to drop the Oxford comma. Lore has it that they were trying to save a microscopic amount of space. Most writers except journalists still firmly support the Oxford comma.<\/p>\n

Citations to Federal Register Notices<\/em> \u2014 This week the time expired for commenting on the USPTO\u2019s \u201cNotice of Proposed Rulemaking\u201d on PTAB rules. The notice at federalregister.gov<\/a>. To find it in the \u201cofficial\u201d format, with citable <\/em>volume and page numbers, you must click on \u201cpdf\u201d in the left margin. Bring reading glasses.<\/p>\n

Save a Good Word<\/em> \u2014 The centuries-old word \u201cpause\u201d is everywhere these days. Dictionaries say it means a temporary stop, but government leaders are writing \u201cpause permanently.\u201d<\/p>\n

Punctuating \u201c 6-7<\/em> \u201c \u2014 This nonsensical word popular with Gen Alpha is written 6 7 or 6-7. I like the hyphen. It\u2019s pronounced \u201csix seven\u201d and it\u2019s meaningless. Until next week, 6-7.<\/p>\n

Comments are always welcome. Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your Friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

November 21, 2025<\/em><\/p>\n

THE \u201cOXFORD COMMA\u201d SHOULD BE MANDATORY <\/strong><\/p>\n

What Is It?<\/em> \u2014The \u201cOxford comma\u201d is the comma before the last item in a list of three or more items. In the sentence, \u201cThe invention requires chips, antennas, and wires.\u201d, the Oxford comma is the comma before \u201cand wires.\u201d The name comes from the style guide of Oxford University Press<\/em> more than a century ago. It\u2019s also known as the serial or series comma.<\/p>\n

It Can Clarify<\/em> \u2014 Sometimes an Oxford comma is critical. In the sentence, “I love my parents, Taylor Swift, and Travis Kelce.\u201d, if you omit the Oxford comma, you\u2019re saying Swift and Kelce are your parents. In a patent claim, a missing Oxford comma potentially could cost millions.<\/p>\n

It Should be Mandatory<\/em> \u2014 Some authorities favor an Oxford comma only to avoid a misinterpretation. A BRYAN GARNER survey showed, however, that by 3 to 1, authorities favor mandatory use. It\u2019s easier to type an Oxford comma reflexively than to ponder whether it\u2019s needed.<\/p>\n

Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your Friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

November 14, 2025<\/em><\/p>\n

STYLE MATTERS IN IP WRITING<\/strong><\/p>\n

A reader recommended the work of the late JAMES MCELHANEY, an often-quoted trial lawyer and professor from the1980s to the early 2000s. Everyone has a style, but is it effective? Here are some of McElhaney\u2019s ideas on style. <\/em><\/p>\n

The Right Tone<\/em> \u2014 Find the best level of formality to fit the situation. Most legal and IP writing is too formal. Use simple words and sentences. Ordinarily, don\u2019t imitate the tone of judicial opinions.<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t Be Awkward <\/em>\u2014 Use the active voice unless there\u2019s a good reason for the passive. Shun many words common in legal writing, including \u201cmanifestly,\u201d \u201cplainly,\u201d and \u201cobviously.\u201d If something really is obvious, you don\u2019t need to highlight it.<\/p>\n

Make Every Page Attractive<\/em> \u2014 Don\u2019t cram too many words on a page. Break up large paragraphs. Use intriguing headings. Limit footnotes.<\/p>\n

Make It Come Alive<\/em> \u2014 Keep the reader engaged. Tell a story. Vary your pace and intensity. Use rhetorical questions occasionally (but carefully).<\/p>\n

Suggestions are welcome. Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your Friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

November 7, 2025<\/em><\/p>\n

TELLING NONFICTION IP STORIES AND READING NOVELS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Legal writing instructors tell their students to develop storytelling skills. Almost anything can be explained as a story to keep readers interested.<\/p>\n

How Storytelling is Applied<\/em> \u2014 Sequence the facts to create a truthful, captivating narrative with a central theme running throughout. Present vivid, specific details and actions that allow the reader to draw the conclusion. The adage is, \u201cshow, don\u2019t tell.\u201d You can cast your client as the protagonist trying to overcome obstacles. In patent law, the protagonist could be the hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art.<\/p>\n

Legal Writers Should Read Novels<\/em> \u2014 Storytelling skills can be learned. Writing expert BRYAN GARNER\u2019s most recent LawProse Lesson<\/a><\/em> suggests that it\u2019s useful for legal writers to read novels. He asserts, \u201cBy studying how novelists evoke emotions and reveal character, legal writers can learn how to present facts in a more compelling way, making arguments not just logical but humanly resonant.\u201d<\/p>\n

Suggestions are welcome. Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your Friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

October 31, 2025<\/em><\/p>\n

GETTING PICKY<\/strong><\/p>\n

Hyphens in Patent Law<\/em> \u2014 Did you ever notice that the U.S. patent act has a hyphen in \u201cnon-obvious,\u201d but many, or most, authors today write \u201cnonobvious\u201d? Personally, I like \u201cnot obvious.\u201d<\/p>\n

No Hyphen in \u201cTrademark\u201d<\/em> \u2014 In the 1950s, USPTO head ROBERT C. WATSON decided the office would use \u201ctrademark.\u201d It was a departure from the English spelling \u201ctrade-mark\u201d\u00a0or \u201ctrade mark.\u201d A good change that stuck.<\/p>\n

Semicolon v. Colon<\/em> \u2014 For years, the patent act has had these section titles: \u201c\u00a7 102. Conditions for patentability; novelty\u201d and \u201c\u00a7 103. Conditions for patentability; non-obvious . . . .\u201d The semicolons in these titles should be colons. Maddening.<\/p>\n

Plain Writing Act<\/em> \u2014 This week I ran across a citation to The<\/em> Plain Writing Act of 2010<\/em>. The U.S. Congress passed this law that requires executive branch agencies to publish annual compliance reports, which they rarely do. Has the act improved writing? Maybe a bit. But read some Federal Register<\/em> notices.<\/p>\n

Suggestions are always welcome. Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your Friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

October 24, 2025<\/em><\/p>\n

HOW TO TALK ABOUT U.S. IP LEGISLATION NOW<\/strong><\/p>\n

The protocol for naming legislation in the U.S. Congress has changed over time. Remember when you needed to know the \u201cH.R.\u201d or \u201cS.\u201d number of a bill? Bill naming has become a competitive sport.<\/p>\n

The primary identifiers today are acronyms<\/em> that stand for the \u201cshort titles\u201d in bills. The \u201cPERA\u201d bill now in Congress addresses patent eligibility. The short title is \u201cP<\/strong>atent E<\/strong>ligibility R<\/strong>estoration A<\/strong>ct,\u201d but just say PERA.<\/p>\n

The \u201cPREVAIL\u201d Act amends the PTAB statute. PREVAIL stands for the\u00a0\u201cP<\/strong>romoting and R<\/strong>especting E<\/strong>conomically V<\/strong>ital A<\/strong>merican I<\/strong>nnovation L<\/strong>eadership Act.\u201d The title was written to have an easy-to-remember acronym. It\u2019s not a problem that no one can remember the title. Just say PREVAIL.<\/p>\n

You can search for bills online by acronym, short title, or bill number. Yes, bills (and laws) still have numbers, but you don\u2019t need to know them unless you\u2019re required to use Bluebook citations.<\/p>\n

I express no opinions on bill content. Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your Friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

October 17, 2025<\/em><\/p>\n

HELPING NONEXPERTS UNDERSTAND THE PHRASE \u201cPATENT ELIGIBILITY\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

People debate the scope of Patent Act section 101. (It\u2019s an introductory section, like English 101 or math 101.) The section tells us that the subject matter categories for a patent are processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter. If an invention falls into one or more of the categories, it\u2019s called \u201cpatent eligible.\u201d If, in addition, it satisfies the other substantive requirements \u2014 new, nonobvious, and description\/claiming \u2014 it\u2019s called \u201cpatentable.\u201d<\/p>\n

Patent experts have their views on the scope of eligibility. But nonexperts often don\u2019t grasp the distinction between \u201cpatent eligibility\u201d and \u201cpatentability.\u201d They think that if an invention is eligible, it must deserve a patent. After all, one of the dictionary definitions of \u201celigible\u201d is \u201cworthy of being chosen\u201d (Merriam-Webster).<\/p>\n

I suggest writing \u201cpatent subject matter eligibility\u201d instead of just \u201cpatent eligibility.\u201d Or writing \u201cpatent eligibility categories\u201d instead of just \u201cpatent eligibility.\u201d Sometimes greater clarity requires more words.<\/p>\n

Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your Friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

October 10, 2025<\/em><\/p>\n

REMOVE REDUNDANT WORDS IN \u201cLEGAL DOUBLETS\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n

Reader JON PUTNAM drew my attention to a Merriam-Webster social media post<\/a> on \u201clegal doublets.\u201d It got 17,000 reactions and 600 comments. A legal doublet is a standardized phrase consisting of two words that are synonyms or near-synonyms, usually connected by and<\/em>. \u201cIndemnify and hold harmless\u201d is a common legal doublet. Other examples: arbitrary and capricious; covenant and agree; due and payable; free and clear; null and void; over and above.<\/p>\n

According to Merriam-Webster, legal doublets originated in England with the practice of pairing a French word and an English word after the Norman conquest. Also, ancient legal writers may have been paid by the word.<\/p>\n

Today we should say something only once in a sentence. If the two words of a doublet are clearly redundant, replace them with a single word. But not all doublets are redundant. How about arbitrary and capricious? I\u2019d call the words similar but not redundant.<\/p>\n

Comments and suggestions are invited. Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address. Click here<\/u> for the Curmudgeon Archives.<\/p>\n

Your Friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

October 3, 2025<\/em><\/p>\n

A FEW COMMON WORDS THAT OCCUR IN IP<\/strong><\/p>\n

and\/or<\/em> \u2014 The venerable Elements of Style<\/em> calls this connector, \u201cA device, or shortcut that damages a sentence, and often leads to confusion or ambiguity.\u201d Think about what you really mean. You may mean \u201cor.\u201d If an awkward sign reads, \u201cNo dogs and\/or cats,\u201d it means \u201cor.\u201d If you don\u2019t mean \u201cor,\u201d you probably mean \u201cand.\u201d If needed for clarity, revise your sentence to avoid the discredited \u201cand\/or.\u201d You can write \u201cA or B or both.\u201d<\/p>\n

Provided that<\/em> \u2014 Often used in agreements and statutes, a clause introduced by provided that<\/em> is a “proviso.” Provisos can be conditions, exceptions, or add-ons. They may introduce ambiguity and make sentences too long. Many legal style guides now recommend replacing provisos with simpler language.<\/p>\n

Appellee<\/em> \u2014 How to pronounce it? Everyone knows how to pronounce \u201cappellant\u201d. The Curmudgeon has noticed, however, that non-lawyers often pronounce appellee \u201ca-PELL-ee\u201d. Black\u2019s Law Dictionary<\/em> gives just one pronunciation: \u201cap-uh-LEE\u201d.<\/p>\n

Comments and suggestions are invited. Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your Friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon <\/a><\/p>\n

September 26, 2025<\/em><\/p>\n

DRAFTING TRANSACTIONAL IP DOCUMENTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cTransactional\u201d IP writers draft license agreements, assignments, corporate formations, etc., setting forth FUTURE rights and responsibilities. Transactional law differs from litigation, in which writers seek to use analysis and persuasion to resolve EXISTING disputes. Here are some tips for transactional matters:<\/p>\n

Organization and Headings<\/em>\u2014Organize provisions in descending order of importance. Use lots of headings and subheadings. Number them. Remember, lengthy written agreements are rarely read from beginning to end.<\/p>\n

Definitions<\/em>\u2014Minimize the need for definitions by saying what you mean. If you must have definitions, create a definitions section at the end. Legislation (a special kind of transactional document) traditionally has a tedious list of definitions at the beginning\u2014a turn off to readers.<\/p>\n

\u201cShall,\u201d \u201cand\/or\u201d and provisos<\/em>\u2014Throw out all of these. BRYAN GARNER has written pages on the ways courts have butchered \u201cshall.\u201d Courts have even construed it to mean \u201cmay.\u201d Replace \u201cshall\u201d with \u201cmust\u201d or \u201cwill,\u201d depending on the context. The goal is clarity.<\/p>\n

Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your Friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

September 19, 2025<\/em><\/p>\n

WORDINESS ALARM BELLS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Sentences Starting With \u201cIt is\u201d<\/em>\u2014 The pronoun \u201cit\u201d is a workhorse word used to refer to an antecedent. But beware of \u201cIt is\u201d at the beginning of a sentence. It may REFER TO NOTHING.<\/p>\n

E.g., \u201cIt is possible that the court will invalidate the patent.\u201d Edited: \u201cThe court may invalidate the patent.\u201d We\u2019ve saved four words and put the subject at the beginning.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Sentences Starting With \u201cThere are\u201d<\/em>\u2014 A similar problem. \u201cThere\u201d is a good word except when it REFERS TO NOTHING.<\/p>\n

E.g., \u201cThere are 14,000 employees at the USPTO.\u201d Edited: \u201cThe USPTO has 14,000 employees.\u201d Two words fewer with the subject at the beginning.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Words Ending in \u201cion\u201d<\/em>\u2014 These are common in formal IP, technical, and legal writing. They\u2019re nouns that often can be replaced with the verb form\u2014 an action word that requires fewer accompanying words.<\/p>\n

E.g., \u201capply,\u201d not \u201csubmit an application\u201d; \u201cdescribe,\u201d not \u201cprovide a description of\u201d; \u201cexamine,\u201d not \u201cconduct an examination of\u201d.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Send me your suggestions. Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your Friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

September 12, 2025<\/em><\/p>\n

TIPS ON EDITING YOUR OWN WORK<\/strong><\/p>\n

After the First Draft<\/em>\u2014Find a process that suits you for going over drafts. Some people start by cleaning up sentences one at a time. Others start with a 30,000-foot review. Does a central point emerge quickly and clearly? Is the material presented in a logical sequence? You need several trips through a draft. Third Circuit Judge THOMAS HARDIMAN told an audience that he and his law clerks circulate numbered drafts of his opinions. His record is 42 drafts to get it right.<\/p>\n

Fresh Eyes Help<\/em>\u2014I usually allow an edited draft to sit at least overnight. You can spot weaknesses more clearly when you come back with fresh eyes.<\/p>\n

IP Word of the Week<\/em>\u2014Is the correct spelling \u201ccancelled\u201d or \u201ccanceled\u201d? Style manuals say both are acceptable. Some U.S. patent, trademark, and copyright statutes use one and some the other. Use the spelling from the statute you\u2019re citing.<\/p>\n

Send me your suggestions. Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your Friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

September 5, 2025<\/em><\/p>\n

IMPROVE DOCUMENT APPEARANCE BY USING WHITE SPACE, ETC.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Years ago, IP documents were so densely printed that readers were repelled from the beginning. Today, attractive document design is part of writing and editing.<\/p>\n

White Space<\/em>\u2014The term refers to empty areas on a page or screen, not necessarily white, used to improve readability and highlight content. Frequent paragraphing creates white space by including blank lines between paragraphs. Similarly, headings create space by introducing associated blank lines. Indented paragraphs and bullets help too. Unless someone else mandates your margins and type size, opt for readability. But if you can avoid it, don\u2019t use double-spaced text. Studies show it\u2019s harder to read.<\/p>\n

Footnotes<\/em>\u2014BRYAN GARNER advocates putting legal citations in footnotes. That makes the main text easier to read. Garner dislikes text in footnotes. If material is so unimportant that you want to relegate it to footnotes, you probably should discard it. (No one reads footnotes anyway.)<\/p>\n

Send me your suggestions. Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your Friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

August 29, 2025<\/em><\/p>\n

TIPS ON LEGAL CITATIONS AND FOOTNOTES<\/strong><\/p>\n

If your task is analytical or persuasive writing, you need supporting authorities, but don\u2019t get bogged down in citation form.<\/p>\n

Should I Consult The Bluebook?\u2014<\/em> Sometimes you must. The ever-expanding 400-page tome is now in its 22nd<\/sup> edition. It\u2019s the most common citation standard for law reviews and U.S. courts of appeals. But you have to know only the few pages relevant to your writing, and software may help. Many courts and publications are relaxed about citation form as long as you have the key information. E.g, volume, page, court, and date.<\/p>\n

Keeping Your Text Easy to Read\u2014<\/em>BRYAN GARNER advocates avoiding \u201ccitation clutter\u201d that makes reading your main text difficult.\u00a0 He moves citations to footnotes. It hasn\u2019t caught on, but I believe it\u2019s a good idea.<\/p>\n

Reader Question\u2014<\/em>ANTHONY PRENOL asked about terminology for subdivisions deep within a complex statute or agreement. How do you refer to 35 U.S.C.102(b)(1)(B)? Is it \u201csubparagraph 102(b)(1)(B)\u201d? I call it \u201csection 102(b)(1)(B).\u201d Simpler is better.<\/p>\n

Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address. Click here<\/u> for the Curmudgeon Archives.<\/p>\n

Your Friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

August 22, 2025<\/em><\/p>\n

PARAGRAPHS IN IP DOCUMENTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Pay careful attention to paragraph structure, particularly in longer documents.<\/p>\n

Topic Sentence<\/em>\u2014Each paragraph generally should open with a topic sentence. That sentence identifies the main point of the paragraph and tells the reader what to expect.<\/p>\n

Middle and End Sentences<\/em>\u2014The middle ensures that the reader can understand the point of the paragraph. The end should reinforce the point in different words. The modern trend is toward shorter paragraphs, often only 3 to 8 sentences.<\/p>\n

Bridging Between Paragraphs<\/em>\u2014Connecting bridges might include: (1) words such as this, that, these, or those, to point to something preceding; (2) echo words that repeat an idea in summary language; and (3) transitional words such as finally, further, or likewise. For real-life examples, see B. Garner, The Winning Brief at 161-68 (2014).<\/p>\n

From Last Week<\/em>\u2014 Reader RORY PHEIFFER asked, \u201cWhy go to one free online dictionary?\u201d He recommended OneLook<\/a>. It provides links to numerous online dictionaries that define your word.<\/p>\n

Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your Friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

August 15, 2025<\/em><\/p>\n

PRESERVING STANDARD, EDUCATED ENGLISH USED IN IP<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Guardians<\/em> – Who are the people protecting our IP briefs, legal memoranda, and patent specifications from television reality show language? The guardians aren\u2019t celebrities or comedians. WE are the guardians (along with English teachers). Judges say IP people often are the most-accomplished and best-prepared writers and speakers they see. Keep up the good work!<\/p>\n

Online Dictionaries<\/em> – They\u2019re great for finding exactly the right word. Use them often. The most popular online dictionary in the U.S. is Merriam-Webster<\/em>, and it\u2019s free. Enter a word and you have at your fingertips the spelling, pronunciation, word history, synonyms, and a host of related words. Black\u2019s Law Dictionary<\/em>, however, isn\u2019t online in any subscription I have. You need to remember the alphabet.<\/p>\n

Milestone <\/em>– Today\u2019s column is the 200th since IPO revived the Curmudgeon. Thanks so much for the many reader suggestions. Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your Friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

August 8, 2025<\/em><\/p>\n

COPING WITH IP WRITER’S BLOCK<\/strong><\/p>\n

Writer’s block\u00a0is \u201ca non-medical condition . . . in which an author is either unable to produce new work or experiences a creative slowdown.\u201d Wikipedia<\/em>.<\/p>\n

It can occur for countless reasons. In the early 1900s, ZANE GREY was one of the first millionaire fiction writers. Then his wife sold his battered, old chair and he couldn\u2019t write. She retrieved the chair and he was a star again. In IP, although we write nonfiction and have deadlines, we can still suffer writer\u2019s block. Try these remedies:<\/p>\n

Change Your Work Habits\u2014<\/em>Write when you\u2019re at your best. Split the job into pieces. If you get on a roll, work 16 hours straight.<\/p>\n

Avoid \u201cAnalysis Paralysis\u201d<\/em>\u2014After you start writing, don\u2019t do more research until you have a draft.<\/p>\n

Unleash the Madman\/Madwoman<\/em>\u2014If you don\u2019t have a clear vision of your arguments and your outlines aren\u2019t helping you, furiously type every unorganized idea you can dream up. Go crazy. Then separate wheat from chaff.<\/p>\n

Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your Friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

August 1, 2025<\/em><\/p>\n

TEN PREFERRED IP AND LEGAL WORDS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Thanks to readers for preferred words. Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your Friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

July 25, 2025<\/em><\/p>\n

PATENT CLAIMING LANGUAGE (CONT.)<\/strong><\/p>\n

To draft or analyze claims, you need to know terms of art. Here are a few:<\/p>\n

Elements or Limitations<\/em>\u2014 Reader JOHN MOLENDA sent a helpful comment on last week\u2019s column. When explaining the effect of transitional phrases on claim coverage, I referred to \u201celements.\u201d I should have said \u201climitations.\u201d That\u2019s the word used in modern Federal Circuit opinions. It\u2019s more precise.<\/p>\n

Squires Claims<\/em>\u2014Named for a 1961 case, these rare claims were a teaser in last week\u2019s column. The entire claim in Squires<\/em> was: \u201c1. A font of numerals as shown in Fig. 1.\u201d\u00a0 Such incorporation by reference is allowed \u201conly when there is no practical way to express the information in words.\u201d Black\u2019s Law Dictionary.<\/em><\/p>\n

Other Claims Named for Cases<\/em>\u2014Jepson<\/em> claims, 1917, have a preamble setting forth the current state of the art, followed by the phrase, \u201cthe improvement comprising.\u201d Markush<\/em> claims, 1925, typically have language such as \u201cselected from the group consisting of.\u201d<\/p>\n

Even plain English fanatics use terms of art. Comments are welcome. Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your Friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

July 18, 2025<\/em><\/p>\n

PATENT CLAIMING LANGUAGE: TRANSITIONAL PHRASES<\/strong><\/p>\n

Patent claims ordinarily have three parts: a preamble, a transitional phrase, and a body. Common transitional phrases are \u201ccomprising,\u201d \u201cconsisting of,\u201d and \u201cconsisting essentially of.\u201d The body states the elements of the claimed invention.<\/p>\n

Comprising<\/em>\u2014Most patent claims use \u201ccomprising,\u201d which in patent lingo is an open-ended term. It means the claim can cover other elements in addition to those in the body.<\/p>\n

Consisting of<\/em>\u2014A closed-ended term meaning that the coverage is limited to elements in the body.<\/p>\n

Consisting Essentially of<\/em>\u2014According to Black\u2019s Law Dictionary<\/em>, this phrase means \u201cnearly closed-ended.\u201d Professor Dennis Crouch believes the Federal Circuit\u2019s June 30 opinion in Eye Therapies<\/em> departed from the established meaning. I offer no opinion on this.<\/p>\n

Squires Claims<\/em>\u2014In writing this column, I discovered that Black\u2019s<\/em> lists varieties of claims, including a rare variety called \u201cSquires Claims.\u201d No, they\u2019re not named for John Squires, the nominee for USPTO director.\u00a0 More next week.<\/p>\n

Comments are welcome. Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your Friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

July 11, 2025<\/em><\/p>\n

DON\u2019T ALWAYS FOLLOW EVERY LANGUAGE RULE<\/strong><\/p>\n

Avoid Redundant Legal Phrases<\/em>\u2014 \u201cTrue and correct\u201d was an example in my last column. Reader DAVID REED said sometimes we may have no choice but to use a redundant phrase. \u201cTrue and correct,\u201d he noted, comes from 28 U.S.C. 1746, which prescribes a format for unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury.<\/p>\n

Prefer the Active Voice<\/em>\u2014In the active voice, the subject performs the action. \u201cJohn made mistakes.\u201d Active voice usually is clearer and more direct, but Garner\u2019s Modern English Usage <\/em>(5th<\/sup> ed.) explains times when you should use the passive. E.g<\/em>., the action may be more important than the actor, or you may not want to reveal the actor\u2019s identity. \u201cMistakes were made.\u201d<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t Split Infinitives<\/em>\u2014That was the old rule. (A split infinitive\u00a0occurs when a word, usually an adverb, is placed between “to” and a basic verb.) Today experts say split infinitives are ok. They might make your sentence clearer and sound more natural. Follow your ear.<\/p>\n

Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your Friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

June 20, 2025<\/em><\/p>\n

COME JULY 31 MILLIONS WILL KNOW THE NAME \u201cFEDERAL CIRCUIT\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n

We live in an IP language bubble, where we use words unfamiliar to the world outside the bubble.<\/p>\n

Federal Circuit<\/em>\u2014The court is known to possibly 100,000 people in IP and elsewhere, but unknown to most of the estimated 245 million U.S. English speakers. That\u2019s about to change. On July 31 the Federal Circuit will hear arguments in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump<\/em>, which involves the president\u2019s constitutional authority to impose tariffs. Major media will report on the case persistently. Suddenly millions will know of the Federal Circuit. From an IP language viewpoint, that will be good.<\/p>\n

Comprising<\/em>\u2014The most common word in patent claims is an \u201copen\u201d term inside the IP bubble and a \u201cclosed\u201d term outside. To get everyone on the same page, I advocate using \u201cincluding\u201d in patent claims.<\/p>\n

Readers<\/em>\u2014Commenting on last week\u2019s column on achieving excellence in IP\/ legal documents, readers said wine only makes you think you\u2019re achieving excellence.<\/p>\n

Click on \u201cCurmudgeon\u201d at the bottom of this column for my email address.<\/p>\n

Your Friend,
\nThe Curmudgeon<\/a><\/p>\n

June 13, 2025<\/em><\/p>\n

TIPS FOR ACHIEVING EXCELLENCE IN IP\/LEGAL DOCUMENTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Unless you\u2019re a novelist, don\u2019t write in a stream of consciousness style. IP and legal documents need organizing before the first draft.<\/p>\n