Better Patent Support Needed (# in bibliography, Country in database)

Summary -- I think there may need to be some fairly major overhauls to how Zotero handles patents as references. Most of the built-in styles do not include the patent number in bibliographies, the database entry for patents does not include the country of issue, and the issuing location is not captured (or created?) from common sites (Google patents).

Details-
I am using Zotero 1.0.9

There are 2 big problems:

1) When I try to cite a patent from the database into a bibliography using APA, CMS (author-date), or Nature [those are all I have tried] the patent number (!) and other specific details are not included at all. For instance the APA style for a patent gives:

Forrester, J. W. (1956, February). Multicooridnate Digital Information Storage Device. Retrieved February 22, 2009, from http://www.google.com/patents?id=MNxYAAAAEBAJ&dq=jay+forrester.

Rather than:
Forrester, J. W. (1956). U.S. Patent No. 2736880. Washington, D.C: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Based on another forum post . I learned that the IEEE style does handle patents OK, but looking into the details of the IEEE style XML (best viewed with a browser that renders XML doc trees such as firefox) it is a bit of a hack, ...er um I mean required some working around. It looks like the only reason it works is that "US Patent " was manually added as a prefix in the title. What about other issuing countries? Which led me to the other possible problem:

2) Zotero does not seem to capture the issuing country for patents, from which it could build a country specific prefix or guess at the issuing authority. For completeness it also seems that a field for issuing authority is be important in case it was not always COUNTRY_NAME Patent and Trademark Office.

In the process of doing this, I also discovered that when capturing patent information from Google Patents, the issuing place (Washington, DC) is not captured. This however is easy to fix manually in the database. But even when entered it does not show up in citations (tested with APA), so is secondary to the two issues above.


Does anyone know if this is being addressed? Other thoughts on how to proceed?

Thanks,
-Bryan
«1
  • edited February 22, 2009
    Ticket added. Thanks.
  • I'd like to bump this thread and add a request to translate both filing date and issue date in any patent-related translators and in the Patent item type. This was obliquely addressed in the original ticket generated by this thread (see erazlogo above), but only from the point of view of date fields in citation styles. From an intellectual property standpoint, filing date is extremely important to determine patent protections, so to be really useful, both the date filed and the date issued need to be built into the patent item type.

    While I'm at it, it would be great if the google patents translator could auto-import the PDF like it does for journal sites.
  • From an intellectual property standpoint, filing date is extremely important to determine patent protections, so to be really useful, both the date filed and the date issued need to be built into the patent item type.
    You could just use "Date" to enter the filing date while you're waiting for this to be fixed.
  • Just to chime in on the dates issue, citations to law cases published in newspapers require both the date of decision and the date of publication. This is from the Bluebook, but any cite to such a case should include both dates.
  • translate both filing date and issue date in any patent-related translators and in the Patent item type... it would be great if the google patents translator could auto-import the PDF like it does for journal sites.
    Ticket added, thanks.
    Just to chime in on the dates issue, citations to law cases published in newspapers require both the date of decision and the date of publication.
    Not sure if this can be fixed in the current setup without adding a new item type. On the other hand, this issue may be automatically solved by the hierarchical item type system.
  • "You could just use "Date" to enter the filing date while you're waiting for this to be fixed."
    Yep, that's what we started doing as soon as we realized that the filing date was missing. I'm not much of a programmer: will the manually entered filing dates in the date field get overwritten when those fields are remapped?

    Many thanks for adding a ticket on this, much obliged. I'm in the process of pushing/pulling my whole workgroup over to Z and even the current patent handling is much better than any other system we've come up with, so that's a major pull for us.
  • will the manually entered filing dates in the date field get overwritten when those fields are remapped
    The filing date will remain, it will just transfer to the new field--I put a note about this on the ticket.
  • For patents in Zotero 2.0rc1, available now, "Country" and "Issuing Authority" have been added, "Date" has been replaced with "Filing Date" (which isn't currently available via citation styles but will be), and "Issue Date" remains mapped to "Date".
  • Any news on when these fields will be available for the citation styles?
  • edited March 25, 2010
    Filing date was added as "date submitted" in CSL 1.0 which is now out. There is a ticket to map filingDate to date submitted--Dan Stillman should know when and how this will happen. As soon as this is done, styles will be able to format patents properly (I would like to do this for Chicago, Turabian, and SBL as soon as possible).
  • @erazlogo
    As soon as this is done, styles will be able to format patents properly
    Is this the current state?:
    1/ "submitted" added to CSL but not working in Zotero v2.0.2 (check also csl.js: Zotero.CSL.Item.prototype._createDate)
    2/ "authority" exists in CSL but not working in Zotero v2.0.2 (check also csl.js: Zotero.CSL.Item._zoteroFieldMap)
    3/ "country" not in CSL
  • edited October 21, 2012
    In the meantime (2012) is there any working workaround apart from the "IEEE hack" to cite patents in winword using the ZOTERO AddIn along with "normal" literature?*

    Working mainly with patents, at least I may have found a way to get the patents into Zotero via RIS which may work for me - if I manage to build a "excel->RIS translator". The ZOTERO RIS "mapping" seems to be (comments are in brackets () with german-zoterian aequivalent behind semicolon:

    TY - PAT (identifyier for patent type)
    AU - Doe, Robert (Inventor surname, prename)
    AU - Doe, John (Inventor surname, prename)
    A2 - Company (applicant; Herausgeber, Anmelder)
    A4 - Doe, Mary (Inventor surname, prename)
    AB - Abstract (works)
    C1 - 2002/08/17 (priority date; Datum der Einreichung, Anmeldedatum)
    C2 - 2004/02/26 (publication date; Erscheinungsdatum, Veröffentlichungsdatum)
    C3 - DE (country DE US...; Land)
    C4 - Agent (attorney;Anwalt)
    C5 - cited docs (works)
    C6 - revoked (legal status; Rechtsstatus)
    CY - Place Published (Place?; Ort)
    EP - End Page (works)
    KW - Keywords (works)
    LA - Language (works)
    OP - PRI1234 (Priotity number; Prioritätsnummer)
    PB - Company2 (assignee; Abtretungsempfänger, Rechtsnachfolger, Lizenznehmer)
    PY - Year (works, may interfere with other dates?)
    SN - DE1234A1 (PATENTNUMBER, at least the IEEE Style seems to include this, some citations apps export patentnumber RIS as "IS - DE1234A1", this seems not to import with ZOTERO)
    SP - Start Page (works as expected)
    ST - Short Title (works as expected)
    TI - Title (works as expected)
    UR - URL (works as expected)
    ER -

    to test, copy the code below starting with "TY -" and including "ER -" into your clipboard, and import into zotero using import from clipboard)

    TY - PAT
    AU - Doe, Robert
    AU - Doe, John
    A2 - Company
    A4 - Doe, Mary
    AB - Abstract
    C1 - 2002/08/17
    C2 - 2004/02/26
    C3 - DE
    C4 - Agent
    C5 - cited docs
    C6 - revoked
    CY - Place Published
    EP - End Page
    KW - test keyword
    LA - Language
    OP - PRI
    PB - Microsoft
    PY - 2000
    SN - DE1234A1
    SP - Start Page
    ST - Short Title
    TI - RIS Import title test
    UR - http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/5780/better-patent-support-needed-in-bibliography-country-in-database/
    ER -

    if you pasted this, there is a new keyword "test keyword" generated in zotero, if you dont' want this, edit the code above and delete the line "KW - test keyword" bevore pasting.

    *I'm afraid I'm part of the problem not part of the solution, so if this input is not appropriate here, feel free to move/delete this post.
  • not in Zotero proper, no.
    But see here:
    http://citationstylist.org/
    and specifically here:
    http://citationstylist.org/wp-content/uploads/patent-1.pdf
    any questions about this, do _not_ post to this thread. Instead, start a new thread that has [MLZ] (for multilingual Zotero) in the title
  • edited October 21, 2012
    Also, FYI, Zotero tries to follow the RIS specification summarized here very closely. Patents are about 2/3 down the page.
  • Thank you.
    My not so proper workaround plan is now (without MLZ), to use some of the CSL fields (note, page, references) that ARE read by Zotero's citation processor, and place additional relevant information with remapped RIS into the according zotero fields. Then, with a manually edited Style, it might work.
  • Zotero provides some important fields for patents (e.g. filingDate, issueDate ..) but how can I access these variables in csl?
    I would have enlarged the IEEE style with some fields but can not figure out how. What does the entry "none" mean here:
    http://gsl-nagoya-u.net/http/pub/csl-fields/patent.html

    Thanks
    Stefan
  • "none" means that the Zotero field in question isn't mapped to a CSL variable.
  • Adder: There exists a csl Version 1.0.1 where the date variable has more entries than just "issue":
    http://citationstyles.org/downloads/specification.html

    Zotero should map its "filingDate" to csl "submitted"-date.

    How is this going to happen?
  • The first step would be to unequivocally establish that filing dates are used in citations and/or bibliographies. What citation format are you using that requires this? Is it described online anywhere?
  • CMS 14.230 (16th ed.) offers this example:
    Iizuka, Masanori, and Hideki Tanaka. Cement admixture. US Patent 4,586,960, filed June 26, 1984, and issued May 6, 1986.
  • The MLZ styles currently map filingDate to the original-date CSL variable, but the mapping could be changed to "submitted" if that is preferred.
  • My personal preference would be to use "submitted", but maybe @bdarcus or @adamsmith have some different views on this. To my knowledge, neither "original-date" and "submitted" is currently in use in Zotero.
  • I don't have a strong view, but I think it makes more sense to use submitted, yes. Since we'll often have original-dates cited as (2000[1776]) or so, having filing dates under a separate label will make things easier.

    I can confirm that neither are currently used.
  • In patents there exist normally multiple dates, e.g.
    - Filed: When it was presented to the patent office
    - Published: Important as it defines the prior art date
    - Foreign Priority Date (when it was originally sent to a foreign patent office)
    - Issued: When it became patent


    Zotero provides:
    filingDate issueDate

    This is probably aligned with CMS 14.230 (example above), which names "filed" and "issued".


    csl provides and explains:
    issued
    date the item was issued/published
    original-date
    (issue) date of the original version
    submitted
    date the item (e.g. a manuscript) has been submitted for publication

    I would recommend now:
    issueDate = issue //Official date, the patent was issued
    filingDate = original-date //as is in MLZ
    publishDate = submitted //Zotero needs additional label in patent
    priorityDate = container //Zotero needs additional label in patent and the existing CSL variable "container" is misused

    Does that make sense?
  • It does make sense.

    IMHO for now, as a patent or a patent application is in most cases part of a patent family, the most important date is the first priority date of the patent family ( a patent/application can have more than one priority date). See for example:
    http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=4&ND=3&adjacent=true&FT=D&date=20121115&CC=US&NR=2012287205A1&KC=A1


    My workaround for now is to place additional dates I like to have in the citation in zotero's "extra" field.
    Find-and-replace in combination with extended REGEX capabilities of e.g. notepad++ can be used to remap existing data.
    In the CSL-STYLE sheet, the "extra" field is adressed using "note".
    With something like:
    <if variable="note">
    <text term="Priority Date"/>
    <text variable="note" />
  • @svrw0405, can you provide an example of a patent citation that includes the priority date of the patent family?

    To add a field to Zotero, we need to be convinced that it is valuable metadata. To add a mapping of that Zotero field to a CSL variable, we need to see evidence that there are styles that display that metadata.
  • edited December 1, 2012
    @Rintze: examples for patent citation with priority dates used from patent family

    German Institute for Standardization (DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Institut_f%C3%BCr_Normung ) recommends as German national standard DIN 1505-2 for the citation of patents:

    title / applicant, inventor name, inventor prename.
    [Pr.:] Country Code, Priority Number. Priority Date. [An.:] Country Code, Application Number, Application Date. - Publication Date

    (see http://www.haw-ingolstadt.de/fileadmin/daten/bibliothek/dokumente/zitieren_lang.pdf, p. 2)

    Admittedly this ist not used very much and the DIN 1505-2 is interpreted rather freely in non-patent literature.

    In the rare cases where the priority data is used at all in the citation of patents (in non-patent literature), mostly the "direct" priority of the application/publication is used (own finding).

    For infringement analysis, research concerning the newness of a certain patent or validation of patents (see i.e. here http://www.patentlens.net/daisy/PositiveSelection/2136/1806.html ) the first priority data of the patent familiy is of utmost importance.
  • It might make sense to map the priority date to the CSL date variable "original-date".
  • In MLZ, I'm getting ready to break the mold in the item panel for the legal types, including patent. In reworking the layout, we can add and drop fields, and I would be interested in feedback. If anyone has a specific list of things that should be included, please post it here. Otherwise, I will post a proposal and questions for discussion fairly soon.
Sign In or Register to comment.