yndigo

Fisher Tool Co., Inc. v. Gillet Outillage

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion the other day in a case that involved, among other things, an apparent mistranslation. Mécanisme à cliquet was translated into English as “ratchet mechanism,” a mistranslation the opinion claims “certainly isn’t clear on its face, since French-to-English dictionaries support it.” This is a case where cliquet is a broader term than ratchet; the French has several possible meanings, and the chosen translation did not fit the context.

It would be interesting to know whether the person translating the patent reviewed the figures, in which case he would have seen a “pawl” or “catch” — the intended meaning of the the French expression here — rather than ratchet, which, according to Wikipedia, is “a device that allows linear or rotary motion in only one direction, while preventing motion in the opposite direction,” i.e., a pawl plus other components.

The alleged mistranslation was part of Fisher’s suit claiming malicious prosecution (for a prior infringement case brought by Gillet), in which it argued that Gillet was aware of the the mistranslation and that the mistranslation invalidated the patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 375(b), because it broadened the claim.

In the end, the translator was “off the hook” so to speak, as the judge found Gillet’s original case tenable and that it had probable cause to sue.