DOCSLIB.ORG

What Is a Patent.Qxp

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What Is a Patent.Qxp Intellectual Property Law Aird & Berlis LLP A Canadian patent gives you the right to exclude others from “making, using or selling” the invention for 20 years from the patent application filing date. A Patent Primer A Canadian patent protects an invention only in Canada. To date, there is no such thing as a “world-wide” or “international” patent, though a number of world-wide treaties allow you to file a There are three basic criteria for BY JOHN LONGO single application to cover a number of patentability, as follows: different countries, such as the “Patent WHAT IS A PATENT (a) the invention must be new. In Cooperation Treaty.” Generally speaking, patent is a government issued order to be novel, the invention a separate patent must be obtained in document which bestows on must not have been disclosed in each country of interest. However, you its owner, the patentee, the such a manner that it became can obtain a single European patent to A exclusive right to manufacture, available to the public before the cover a number of different European sell and use the invention claimed in filing date of the application of the countries. the patent until the patent expires. In patent. However, you are also A patent is property you can sell Canada, patent law is governed by the provided a one year grace period (assign) or license. If you (the Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, C.33 (3rd Supp). from your own disclosures or for “assignor”) sell a patent it becomes the Patent protection rests on the concept those by people who have property of the buyer (the “assignee”). If of a bargain between the inventor and obtained information from you; you license your patent to another the public: in exchange for statutory (b) the invention must be useful (ie, person (the “licensee”), the patent monopoly rights for a limited time, the functional and operative); and remains your property, but the licensee, inventor must provide full disclosure of under conditions set out in a licence the invention to the public for the general (c) the invention must be inventive, or agreement, can use the invention. benefit of society. This means that the not “obvious” to someone skilled inventor must describe the invention in in the field of the invention. sufficient detail so as to permit anyone WHAT DOES Generally speaking, a new and skilled in the field relating to the patent “PROTECTION” MEAN unobvious product, process, apparatus to make or use the invention after Patent infringement occurs when or composition of matter, or any new or reading the description. someone makes, uses or sells your useful improvement thereto will be patented invention without your perm- patentable. ission in a country that has granted you WHAT CAN BE PATENTED a patent, during the term of the patent. Only “inventions” are patentable. The WHY OBTAIN A PATENT If your patent has been infringed, you Patent Act defines an invention to mean can sue for damages in the appropriate Patents are worth acquiring since they “any new and useful art, process, Court. You may also seek injunctive relief provide the possibility of protecting, machine, manufacture or composition of to stop the infringing activity. and keeping exclusive, commercially matter or any new and useful important technology. improvement” thereto. NOVEMBER 2005 PAGE 1 Aird & Berlis LLP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW WHEN TO APPLY FOR A (e) keep track of the work of a time, being sufficiently specific to PATENT particular individual or company identify your invention and distinguish it by seeing what patents they from all prior inventions. In Canada, a patent application must have been granted. The writing of a patent specification be filed no later than one year after the requires specialized legal and technical earliest public disclosure of the invention skills and should be done by a registered by you (the inventor) or someone who THE PATENT APPLICATION patent agent. derives information from you. This grace In order to obtain a patent, it is period does not apply to disclosure necessary to prepare and file a patent made by anyone else and your application with the Patent Office in the EXAMINATIONS BY THE application must be on file before any country or countries in which protection PATENT OFFICE such disclosure. However, in general, it is is sought. The federal agency Once a patent application is prepared, better to keep an invention secret until responsible for granting patents in it is filed with the Patent Office. after a patent application is filed as, in Canada is the Canadian Intellectual After filing, a technically trained Canada, if two or more parties apply to Property Office, directed by the examiner will scrutinize the application patent the same invention, the patent Commissioner of Patents. for novelty, inventiveness and comp- will be awarded to the party which files A patent application contains a patent liance with formal requirements. The the patent application first, regardless of specification comprising a background examiner will also conduct a search for who made the invention first. to the invention, a summary of the previously issued patents and previously invention and a detailed description of the issued patent applications (in order to PATENTABILITY SEARCHES invention, including a preferred example(s) compare the invention to the prior art) of the invention, often including drawings. and reject or accept the claims as Before applying for a patent, it is wise The patent specification must describe proposed. As the applicant, you have to conduct a preliminary search of exiting the invention in sufficient detail to an opportunity to respond to the patents. The search will provide a good allow a person of ordinary skill in the examiner’s comments, and may choose indication of the “state of the art” and art to carry out the invention without to modify the claims to address the therefore help in determining if your undue experimentation. examiner’s concerns. invention may be patentable. The patent application includes Determining whether your invention is “claims” to define the scope of patent patentable is not an easy task. At this TIMING protection requested. The claims are stage of the process, we recommended After a patent application has been critical because they define the scope of that you rely on the expertise of a patent filed, an examination will not take place the patent rights being sought. Anything agent, who will assist in comparing your until you have requested it. The request disclosed in the specification but not invention to others and weigh similarities must be made within 5 years of the claimed is not covered in the application. and differences. It is important to note Canadian filing date, failing which, The claims must define the essential that no search will “guarantee” the your application will be treated as having elements of the invention. At the same patentability of any invention. been abandoned. time, the claims must not cover anything A search through a patent data base The Patent Office receives approximately that has previously been publicly known. can also help you: 30,000 requests for examinations per A claim in a patent may be invalid if it year. As a result, after an examination fails to adequately distinguish the (a) identify trends and developments has been requested, it is not uncommon invention from prior inventions. Invalid in a specified field of technology; for patent applications to remain claims are unenforceable. On the other pending for 2 or 3 years before resulting (b) understand what information is hand, claims that are too narrow in in an issued patent. required in the patent application scope may permit the patent to be to fully define the invention; circumvented by others. (c) identify unproductive avenues Several claims are typically included PROTESTS of inquiry by reading about the to protect different features or Patent applications are made public or current state of the art; combinations of features of the “laid open” for inspection 18 months invention. As reflected above, the after their Canadian filing date, or an (d) determine whether the invention objective is to draft the claims so that earlier foreign filing date. At that time, is in a “crowded art” where the invention is defined broadly enough anyone can raise questions about the broad protection may be to provide maximum protection against patentability of your invention or one of difficult to obtain; and potential infringers, while at the same- its claims by filing “prior art” (ie, PAGE 2 NOVEMBER 2005 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW Aird & Berlis LLP information that might cause the examiner to object to one or more of your claims). The “prior art” can be patents, patent applications which have been open to the public for inspection or other published materials that have a bearing on the case. FEES There are three kinds of fees you pay to obtain a patent: filing fees, examination fees and grant of patent fees. Yearly maintenance fees are required to maintain an application or a patent in force. (a) patent application preparation and filing costs: the cost for preparing and filing a patent application in Canada for a simple invention is approximately $6,000.00. Costs are higher for more complex inventions. (b) prosecution costs: these are the costs incurred to negotiate with the examiner at the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. These costs vary widely, but are typically anywhere from $3,000.00 to $5,000.00 over a period of two to five years. (c) maintenance fees: most countries charge “maintenance fees” which must be paid periodically throughout the patent application process and throughout the term of the granted patent. These fees vary widely, but range from approx- imately $100.00/year in the early stages to approximately $450.00/year in later stages.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Confusing Patent Eligibility
    CONFUSING PATENT ELIGIBILITY DAVID 0. TAYLOR* INTRODUCTION ................................................. 158 I. CODIFYING PATENT ELIGIBILITY ....................... 164 A. The FirstPatent Statute ........................... 164 B. The Patent Statute Between 1793 and 1952................... 166 C. The Modern Patent Statute ................ ..... 170 D. Lessons About Eligibility Law ................... 174 II. UNRAVELING PATENT ELIGIBILITY. ........ ............. 178 A. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs............ 178 B. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l .......... .......... 184 III. UNDERLYING CONFUSION ........................... 186 A. The Requirements of Patentability.................................. 186 B. Claim Breadth............................ 188 1. The Supreme Court's Underlying Concerns............ 189 2. Existing Statutory Requirements Address the Concerns with Claim Breadth .............. 191 3. The Supreme Court Wrongly Rejected Use of Existing Statutory Requirements to Address Claim Breadth ..................................... 197 4. Even if § 101 Was Needed to Exclude Patenting of Natural Laws and Phenomena, A Simple Statutory Interpretation Would Do So .................... 212 C. Claim Abstractness ........................... 221 1. Problems with the Supreme Court's Test................221 2. Existing Statutory Requirements Address Abstractness, Yet the Supreme Court Has Not Even Addressed Them.............................. 223 IV. LACK OF ADMINISTRABILITY ....................... ....... 227 A. Whether a
    [Show full text]
  • Invention and Patent Policy (00015747-10).DOC
    Patent and Invention Policy The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Effective as of January 1, 2009 Updated April 22, 2013 Patent & Invention Policy I. Preamble The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is dedicated to education, research, and public service, including economic development in North Carolina. Inventions and discoveries sometimes arise in the course of research conducted by University faculty, students, and staff. The Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina has determined that patenting and commercialization of these inventions and discoveries is consistent with the mission of the University. Service to the public is an integral part of the University's mission. Where possible, the University should enable inventions and discoveries resulting from its research to reach the public in a manner that will maximize their impact on society and, at the same time, provide adequate recognition and reward to inventors. This policy has been established to ensure that those inventions and discoveries in which the University has an interest will be utilized in a manner consistent with the public good through patent protection or other mechanisms as appropriate. In addition, the University is obligated under the Bayh-Dole Act and other statutes to be responsible stewards of inventions resulting from research funded with public money. The provisions of this policy are subject to any applicable laws, regulations or specific provisions of the grants or contracts which govern the rights in inventions or discoveries made in connection with sponsored research. Under the terms of certain contracts and agreements between the University and various agencies of government, private and public corporations and private interests, the University is or may be required to assign or license all rights to inventions or discoveries that arise in the course of work conducted under such agreements to the contracting party.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Law: a Handbook for Congress
    Patent Law: A Handbook for Congress September 16, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46525 SUMMARY R46525 Patent Law: A Handbook for Congress September 16, 2020 A patent gives its owner the exclusive right to make, use, import, sell, or offer for sale the invention covered by the patent. The patent system has long been viewed as important to Kevin T. Richards encouraging American innovation by providing an incentive for inventors to create. Without a Legislative Attorney patent system, the reasoning goes, there would be little incentive for invention because anyone could freely copy the inventor’s innovation. Congressional action in recent years has underscored the importance of the patent system, including a major revision to the patent laws in 2011 in the form of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. Congress has also demonstrated an interest in patents and pharmaceutical pricing; the types of inventions that may be patented (also referred to as “patentable subject matter”); and the potential impact of patents on a vaccine for COVID-19. As patent law continues to be an area of congressional interest, this report provides background and descriptions of several key patent law doctrines. The report first describes the various parts of a patent, including the specification (which describes the invention) and the claims (which set out the legal boundaries of the patent owner’s exclusive rights). Next, the report provides detail on the basic doctrines governing patentability, enforcement, and patent validity. For patentability, the report details the various requirements that must be met before a patent is allowed to issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Horizon Book of Authorities
    PATENTED MEDICINE PRICES REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF THE PATENT ACT R.S.C. 1985, C. P-4, AS AMENDED AND IN THE MATTER OF HORIZON PHARMA PLC (THE “RESPONDENT”) AND THE MEDICINE CYSTEAMINE BITARTRATE SOLD BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER THE TRADE NAME PROCYSBI® BOOK OF AUTHORITIES OF THE RESPONDENT (MOTION TO BIFURCATE, STRIKE EVIDENCE AND FOR THE INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS) Torys LLP 79 Wellington St. W., Suite 3000 Toronto ON M5K 1N2 Fax: 416.865.7380 Sheila R. Block Tel: 416.865.7319 [email protected] Andrew M. Shaughnessy Tel: 416.865.8171 [email protected] Rachael Saab Tel: 416.865.7676 [email protected] Stacey Reisman Tel: 416.865.7537 [email protected] Counsel to Respondent, Horizon Pharma PLC INDEX 1. Board Decision – Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. and the Medicine “Soliris” (September 20, 2017) 2. Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FC 734 3. Celgene Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 1 4. Board Decision – Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. and the Medicine “Soliris” (March 29, 2016) 5. Mayne Pharma (Canada) Inc. v. Aventis Pharma Inc., 2005 FCA 50 6. P.S. Partsource Inc. v. Canadian Tire Corp., 2001 FCA 8 7. Harrop (Litigation Guardian of) v. Harrop, 2010 ONCA 390 8. Merck & Co v. Canada (Minister of Health), 2003 FC 1511 9. Vancouver Airport Authority v. Commissioner of Competition, 2018 FCA 24 10. Merck & Co, Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health), 2003 FC 1242 11. H-D Michigan Inc. v. Berrada, 2007 FC 995 12. Roger T. Hughes, Arthur Renaud & Trent Horne, Canadian Federal Courts Practice 2019 (Toronto: LexisNexis Canada Inc., 2019) 13.
    [Show full text]
  • Compulsory Patent Licensing: Is It a Viable Solution in the United States Carol M
    Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review Volume 13 | Issue 2 2007 Compulsory Patent Licensing: Is It a Viable Solution in the United States Carol M. Nielsen Michael R. Samardzija University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.umich.edu/mttlr Part of the Administrative Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Carol M. Nielsen & Michael R. Samardzija, Compulsory Patent Licensing: Is It a Viable Solution in the United States, 13 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 509 (2007). Available at: http://repository.law.umich.edu/mttlr/vol13/iss2/9 This Symposium Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMPULSORY PATENT LICENSING: IS IT A VIABLE SOLUTION IN THE UNITED STATES? Carol M. Nielsen* Michael R. Samardzija** Cite as: Carol M. Nielsen and Michael R. Samardzija, Compulsory Patent Licensing: Is It a Viable Solution in the United States?, 13 MICH. TELECOMM. TECH. L. REV. 509 (2007), available at http://www.mttlr.org/volthirteen/nielsen&samardzija.pdf As technology continues to advance at a rapid pace, so do the number of patents that cover every aspect of making, using, and selling these innovations. In 1996, to compound the rapid change of technology, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that business methods are also patentable.
    [Show full text]
  • "Reasonably" Compensate Employee Invento Rs in Japan
    By Calvin GRIFFITH, MICHIRU Takahashi & Nobutaka KOMIyAMA bly" Compe ona nsat as e E "Re m o pl t o g ye n e i il In a v F e f n o t o s r l s l i a n f J t i a P p a e N h : T EMPLOYERS BEWARE The United States is generally considered a more litigious paying seven-figure sums in compensation for employee country than Japan, where customs traditionally favor a less inventions, having expected that the compensation provided confrontational approach to dispute resolution. But there is in the ordinary employment contract or internal employment one exception—employee invention lawsuits. A recent series regulations would be accepted by courts as reasonable. of lawsuits filed by aggrieved employee inventors against This stunning development in Japanese courts is based on their employer companies, demanding “reasonable remu- Japan’s unique employee invention system under Article neration” for the employees’ inventions, has brought atten- 35 of the Japan Patent Law, and foreign companies doing tion to this unique area of Japanese patent law—and raised business in Japan, especially those with R&D facilities there, concern in the business community. Japanese companies should be familiar with the provisions of Article 35 and the were shocked to find themselves facing the possibility of case law applying it. 14 orIgIn oF thE FUss—ArtIclE 35 AnD thE olyMPUs CasE be entitled to remuneration based on income from the pat- Article 35 of the Japan Patent law. Japan has a unique ents. Pursuant to those regulations, Olympus acquired a pat- employee invention system under Article 35 of the Patent ent on employee Tanaka’s invention.
    [Show full text]
  • Patents and the Public Domain: Improving Patent Quality Upon Reexamination
    Patents and the Public Domain: Improving Patent Quality Upon Reexamination Prepared by Policy Intern Raeanne Young [email protected] May 2008 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION eff.org Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................3 PATENTS AND THE PUBLIC DOMAIN .....................................................................................................4 The Problem With Patent Quality ..................................................................................................4 Policy Rationale: Encouraging Innovation .......................................................................................4 PATENT REEXAMINATION ...................................................................................................................6 Ex parte and Inter partes .............................................................................................................6 OVERALL REEXAMINATION TRENDS ......................................................................................................8 Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data: July , 98 - December 3, 2007 ...............................................8 Inter Partes Reexamination Filing Data: November 29, 999 - December 3, 2007 .............................0 Comparison of Ex Parte and Inter Partes ......................................................................................0 PROMOTING FAIRNESS IN THE PATENT SYSTEM THROUGH REEXAMINATION .............................................2
    [Show full text]
  • European Patent Office
    European Patent Office Report from the IP5 expert round table on artificial intelligence Munich, 31 October 2018 Executive summary 1. This document does not reflect any policy statement of the IP5 Offices or a particular patent office but only represents the workshop discussions. 2. Artificial Intelligence (AI) concerns algorithms allowing computers to self-improve computational tasks, including methods such as machine learning. The concept of AI originated in the 1950s, but only the recent significant increases in computational power have made practical applications of AI possible. As a result, AI is one of the drivers and a key element in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. In the globalised economy, the rapid development of AI technologies suggests a series of specific challenges for patent law and practice. 3. The IP5 Offices account for 80% of the global patent market and share the responsibility to increase efficiencies and legal certainty in the patent system. From a strategic perspective the IP5 Co-operation enables the offices to jointly remain at the forefront of developments and explore the impact of AI on the patent system and operations. 4. In the June 2018 IP5 Heads of Office meeting, the IP5 Offices were requested to explore the impact of AI, promote common understanding of the pertinent issues, prepare further discussions and develop policy options for the future. In this context, IP5 experts met on 31 October 2018 at the EPO in Munich to discuss specific legal aspects relating to the patenting of AI. The topics of this round table may serve as a basis for potential further work on AI issues by the IP5 Offices.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 Novelty and Inventive Step (Patent Act Article 29(1) and (2))
    Note: When any ambiguity of interpretation is found in this provisional translation, the Japanese text shall prevail. Part III Chapter 2 Section 1 Novelty Chapter 2 Novelty and Inventive Step (Patent Act Article 29(1) and (2)) Section 1 Novelty 1. Overview Patent Act Article 29(1) provides as the unpatentable cases (i) inventions that were publicly known, (ii) inventions that were publicly worked (iii) inventions that were described in a distributed publication or made available to the public through electric telecommunication lines in Japan or a foreign country prior to the filing of the patent application. The same paragraph provides that a patent shall not be granted for these publicly known (Note) inventions (inventions lacking novelty, hereinafter referred to as "prior art” in this chapter.). The patent system is provided to grant an exclusive right to the patentee in exchange for disclosure of the invention. Therefore, the invention which deserves the patent should be novel. This paragraph is provided to achieve such a purpose. This Section describes the determination of novelty for an invention of the patent applications to be examined (hereinafter referred to as "the present application" in this Section.) (Notes) The term "publicly known" generally falls under Article 29(1)(i), or under the 29(1)(i) to (iii), hereinafter the latter is applied. 2. Determination of Novelty Inventions subject to determination of novelty are claimed inventions. The examiner determines whether the claimed invention has novelty by comparing the claimed inventions and the prior art cited for determining novelty and an inventive step (the cited prior art) to identify the differences between them.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Department of Commerce U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
    Template Version Number: 01-2020 U.S. Department of Commerce U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Privacy Threshold Analysis for the Patent End to End (PE2E) System Template Version Number: 01-2020 U.S. Department of Commerce Privacy Threshold Analysis USPTO Patent End to End (PE2E) System Unique Project Identifier: PTOP-003-00 Introduction: This Privacy Threshold Analysis (PTA) is a questionnaire to assist with determining if a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) is necessary for this IT system. This PTA is primarily based from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) privacy guidance and the Department of Commerce (DOC) IT security/privacy policy. If questions arise or further guidance is needed in order to complete this PTA, please contact your Bureau Chief Privacy Officer (BCPO). Description of the information system and its purpose: Provide a general description (in a way that a non-technical person can understand) of the information system that addresses the following elements: The E-Government Act of 2002 defines “ information system” by reference to the definition section of Title 44 of the United States Code. The following is a summary of the definition: “ Information system” means a discrete set of information resources organized for the collection, processing, maintenance, use, sharing, dissemination, or disposition of information. See: 44. U.S.C. § 3502(8). Patents End-to-End (PE2E) is a Master system portfolio consisting of next generation Patents Automated Information Systems (AIS). The goal of PE2E is to make the interaction of USPTO’s users as simple and efficient as possible in order to accomplish user goals.
    [Show full text]
  • Structure and Function of the Patent Specification August 2014
    Structure and Function of the Patent Specification August 2014 Structure and Function of the Patent Specification The structure of a patent specification is described below, with some explanations of underlying patent law concepts that the specification is designed to address. At the end of this note is a section which guides applicants in checking a specification that we prepare on their behalf. General Purpose The purpose of the patent specification is to fulfil the patentee’s part in the contract that a patent constitutes. In return for a full disclosure of the invention, the patentee can have a time-limited monopoly for the invention. During that time, the patentee has the right to stop others working the invention without permission. The monopoly generally lasts for twenty years, although annual renewal fees are usually payable. After the patent expires, the invention enters the public domain and cannot be patented again. A patent is enforced if necessary against infringers by action brought before the court. A patent specification is a legal document. Third parties and the court must be able to understand it, so that the limits of the protection it affords can be determined precisely. Structure of the specification • A patent specification normally has the following parts in the order given: • A title to identify the invention. • A statement as to the field to which the invention relates. • An explanation of the background “state of the art” – what was already known prior to the invention. • A statement of an objective technical problem which the invention seeks to solve, or an objective the invention is aimed at achieving.
    [Show full text]
  • Compulsory Licensing of Patented Inventions
    Compulsory Licensing of Patented Inventions -name redacted- Visiting Scholar January 14, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R43266 Compulsory Licensing of Patented Inventions Summary The term “compulsory license” refers to the grant of permission for an enterprise seeking to use another’s intellectual property without the consent of its proprietor. The grant of a compulsory patent license typically requires the sanction of a governmental entity and provides for compensation to the patent owner. Compulsory licenses in the patent system most often relate to pharmaceuticals and other inventions pertaining to public health, but they potentially apply to any patented invention. U.S. law allows for the issuance of compulsory licenses in a number of circumstances, and also allows for circumstances that are arguably akin to a compulsory license. The Atomic Energy Act, Clean Air Act, and Plant Variety Protection Act provide for compulsory licensing, although these provisions have been used infrequently at best. The Bayh-Dole Act offers the federal government “march-in rights,” although these have not been invoked in the three decades since that legislation has been enacted. 28 U.S.C. Section 1498 provides the U.S. government with broad ability to use inventions patented by others. Compulsory licenses have also been awarded as a remedy for antitrust violations. Finally, a court may decline to award an injunction in favor of a prevailing patent owner during infringement litigation, an outcome that some observers believe is akin to the grant of a compulsory license. A number of international agreements to which the United States and its trading partners are signatories, including the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, World Trade Organization agreements, and certain free trade agreements, address compulsory licensing.
    [Show full text]