Glossary entry (derived from question below)
English term or phrase:
at least one of... and...
French translation:
au moins un parmi... et...
Added to glossary by
Nathalie Stewart
Mar 30, 2019 12:58
5 yrs ago
5 viewers *
English term
at least one of... and...
English to French
Law/Patents
Patents
syntax/sentence structure
For confidentiality reasons, I cannot disclose the exact items listed in the original sentence, but I am curious to know how patent translation experts handle this type of sentence structure in French:
"A system comprising ***at least one of*** a [XXX], a [YYY], a [ZZZ] ***and*** a [WWW]"
> Système comportant au moins l'un des éléments suivants : [XXX], [YYY], [ZZZ] ou [WWW] ?
> Système comportant au moins un [XXX], un [YYY], un [ZZZ] ou un [WWW] ?
I am having trouble keeping the "at least one of" consistent with "and". I cannot use "et" in French without distorting the original meaning.
Is it ok if EN "and" becomes FR "ou"?
"A system comprising ***at least one of*** a [XXX], a [YYY], a [ZZZ] ***and*** a [WWW]"
> Système comportant au moins l'un des éléments suivants : [XXX], [YYY], [ZZZ] ou [WWW] ?
> Système comportant au moins un [XXX], un [YYY], un [ZZZ] ou un [WWW] ?
I am having trouble keeping the "at least one of" consistent with "and". I cannot use "et" in French without distorting the original meaning.
Is it ok if EN "and" becomes FR "ou"?
Proposed translations
(French)
5 +3 | au moins un parmi... et... | Clem Deviers |
4 +1 | un ou plusieurs parmi... et | orgogozo |
4 -1 | les au moins un | Renate Radziwill-Rall |
Proposed translations
+3
58 mins
Selected
au moins un parmi... et...
"a [XXX], a [YYY], a [ZZZ] ***and*** a [WWW]" constitue alors un 'ensemble' au sein duquel on choisit au moins un élément.
=> comportant*/comprenant** au moins un parmi 'l'ensemble'.
*/** reviennent généralement au même, sauf s'agissant d'un ensemble limitatif comprenant, c'est-à-dire englobant, A, B et C, par exemple. Peut-être par exemple dans le cas d'une énumération de molécules. Lorsqu'il s'agit d'une structure, au contraire, les deux termes sont pour moi interchangeables.
"les au moins un" est pour moi inexact et devrait s'écrire "l'au moins un", avec le singulier qui prévaut. En outre, cette expression est la traduction de "the at least one" que l'on trouve normalement après l'expression faisant l'objet de la question : "(comprising) at least one of".
"un ou plusieurs parmi... et..." convient aussi.
(Je suis ingénieur brevets.)
=> comportant*/comprenant** au moins un parmi 'l'ensemble'.
*/** reviennent généralement au même, sauf s'agissant d'un ensemble limitatif comprenant, c'est-à-dire englobant, A, B et C, par exemple. Peut-être par exemple dans le cas d'une énumération de molécules. Lorsqu'il s'agit d'une structure, au contraire, les deux termes sont pour moi interchangeables.
"les au moins un" est pour moi inexact et devrait s'écrire "l'au moins un", avec le singulier qui prévaut. En outre, cette expression est la traduction de "the at least one" que l'on trouve normalement après l'expression faisant l'objet de la question : "(comprising) at least one of".
"un ou plusieurs parmi... et..." convient aussi.
(Je suis ingénieur brevets.)
Peer comment(s):
agree |
Eliza Hall
: I'm an IP lawyer. I read it as "at least one of the following elements: X, Y, Z; and in addition to the X, Y and/or Z, also a W." That said, more context might change my reading of it.
2 hrs
|
neutral |
Renate Radziwill-Rall
: Ce que je voulais dire, dans les textes des brevets il y a foule de formules inacceptables dans la grammaire française. Avec mon post, je ne parle que de ce que je vois tous les jours.
2 hrs
|
(Clem) Tout à fait, les particularités de chaque langue font parfois de l'exactitude grammaticale un vœu pieux !
|
|
agree |
Tony M
2 hrs
|
agree |
Christian Fournier
5 hrs
|
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Merci beaucoup ! "
+1
19 mins
un ou plusieurs parmi... et
une possibilité que j'utilise personnellement
Note from asker:
Bonne solution, qui aurait pu également fonctionner, jusqu'à ce que Clem Deviers propose une formule encore plus précise. Merci ! |
-1
24 mins
les au moins un
système comprenant (!!!) les au moins l'un des ...
Peer comment(s):
disagree |
Tony M
: As Clem says, the use of 'les' here does not fit with the rest of the syntax.
3 hrs
|
Discussion
</br> Anyway, very interesting discussion, covering many different aspects of patents and extending far beyond my original question.
Yes. One is clear; one's not.
Unless the drawings, prosecution history, common sense etc. suggest otherwise, I would tend to read them as meaning that the first one only covers an invention that has either X, or Y, or Z element (but not a combination of those elements), while the second claim would cover both that invention (i.e. just one of those elements) and also an invention that combines two or all three of those elements. If the patentee on that first claim (X, Y or Z) was claiming something broader, they could've said so. Why didn't they?
That being said, if I were counsel for the patentee on that first one, I would argue that any invention that included one of those elements was covered, whether or not it also included either of the other two elements. Assuming this interpretation isn't contradicted by the drawings, prosecution history, common sense etc., you could argue that the claim covers any invention featuring X, Y or Z regardless of what else it may feature. So this one is unclear.
But in PATENTS, there is no style. There is only substance, only concrete meaning. Patent claim language is as precise as math; every word is there, or not there, for a reason. You can't switch out "and" for "or"; you must stay as close to the original as possible. If you change or obscure the meaning, you could cost your client tens of thousands of dollars. Don't do it.
@ Christian Fournier: a patent claim covering "X, Y or Z" covers exactly what it says: X, Y or Z. If any 1 of those 3 elements is present, it's covered. That's completely different than a patent claim covering "X, Y and Z" (all 3 elements must be present) or one covering "X and Y or Z" (element X must be coupled with either element Y or Z).
Also @ Christian Fournier: you said you translated "et" with "or" yesterday. If that translation was a patent, I strongly recommend that you replace that "or" with "and.
You could perhaps make such a change in a contract or litigation discovery request, because contracts and discovery requests have definition sections that often specifically say that the conjunctive (and) can mean the disjunctive (or) and vice-versa.
But patents do not say that, and the difference between a patent claim covering "X, Y and Z" and one covering "X and either Y or Z" is HUGE. A product could infringe a patent claiming "X and either Y or Z" but not at all infringe a patent claiming "X, Y and Z." Those are two different inventions.
Renate is right: IN A PATENT, NEVER CHANGE "AND" TO "OU" or vice versa. Not unless you want to either get your client sued, or cause your client to spend tons of money mistakenly suing someone else. The suit wouldn't get far, because once the original patent was read the lawyers would realize there was no basis for the suit -- but it could easily cost tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees before they reached that point.
D'où tiens-tu cette information ? C'est la première fois que j'en entends parler.
J'utilise la même formule que vous (l'un des éléments suivants), et je remplace "et" par "ou".
D'ailleurs, j'ai constaté que c'est bien souvent qu'un "and" doit devenir un "ou" en français pour rendre le sens.