Do tag the question with more general categories that others might subscribe to. For this example, tags like wireless-networks or information-security (the USPTO's classification) might be useful.

Since this site is US-centric, I guess we should follow the US classification system rather than the international patent classification. (Note that every US patent application or patent contains one or more class under the heading “Current U.S. Class” or “(52) U.S. Cl.”.)

The name of the tag corresponding to a class should be the name of the class. Some classes have names that are too long for a tag; in that case, retain the most important words.

I propose to follow a standard format for tag wikis too. The tag wiki should link to both the schedule (overview) and definition (detailed description), e.g. sched002/defs002. I've suggested a couple of examples with some basic information: , .

2 Answers 2


I agree with this approach, and think that the class should be used in substitution of the actual patent number which would seem to be too narrow for a tag, however since it is in the FAQ then I think we should definitely include the class.


This question has recently gotten more complicated now that the USPTO has adopted the CPC, which is intended to be an international standard. However, the adoption thus far has been slow, and the large majority of patents remain classified only as IPC, ECLA, or US. My vote is currently for IPC or CPC (where applicable) since a concordance is available and both are international standards. The concordance is especially applicable at the class level, but will fall apart at the sub-class level, which relies more on ECLA subclasses.

The EPO and USPTO have switched entirely to classifying with CPC, and Google is planning on rolling out CPC classifications over non-patent literature within the next few months (source: PIUG 2015 CPC workshop).

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .