54, the title, at least in UK (and IIRC in Europe) has no bearing on the field or scope of the invention. I've the vaguest recollection of a case in the UK facing this issue and being judged that the title was not allowed to be used in determining the scope.

If the title could be used for such purposes then you need the title to be as broad as possible to avoid reducing the scope of the patent unnecessarily. Suppose you patent "an improvement to a automobile engine" and it's later seen that the same improvement is good for boat engines, rocket engines maybe, etc.. This would be equivalent to file wrapper estoppel¹.

However, the claims define the invention and the title (again at least in the UK) must only signify the field of the invention. If you improve "linked lists" in your invention then you don't make up a new field you call it that. Simply "Linked Lists" is broad, it could easily be shorthand for "Linked Lists used in non-traditional fields" or "An alternative to linked lists", etc., and so is highly unlikely to limit the patent but still meets the regulatory obligation to provide a relevant title.

There I said it. Titles don't matter. Granted claims matter, in this case the claims in the B2, http://www.google.com/patents?id=Szh4AAAAEBAJ&printsec=c... (which don't look modified but I didn't really check).

--

¹ Firefox spellcheck says it's "estoppal" but I think I'm right (for a change ;0)>)

> It is the title of the patent located on the upper left in google patent. If you search for linked list patent it comes up on patent storm. This does not seem to be a case of deception.

Titles are completely unrelated to the actually claims a patent makes. You can title your patent whatever you want, and it carries zero legal force when it comes to evaluating whether or not an invention is or is not covered by the patent in question.

If we assume the intent here isn't deception, then basing your description of what a patent covers on the patent's title at the very least betrays a deep ignorance of how patents actually function.

None of which is to say that this patent isn't bloody obvious or ought not to be struck down.

I'd argue it's still a case of deception. The fact that the patent is poorly titled doesn't change that. If the patent were titled "wheel and axle" but contained its current content, it would still be misleading to say that someone had patented the wheel and axle.

And no, I don't feel like digging through a bunch of anti-patent articles looking for misleading claims. Even if this were the only example, the point would stand that using misleading claims makes it harder to trust the movement.