Translation Studies Diary of 2 July, 2024

As I used to work in a patent office, I will take the European patent law as an example.
In international patent practice, the patent provision of the EP below come up frequently.

European Patent Convention
Article 54
Novelty
(1) An invention shall be considered to be new if it does not form part of the state of the art.
(2) The state of the art shall be held to comprise everything made available to the public by means of a written or oral description, by use, or in any other way, before the date of filing of the European patent application.

The article provides the criteria for determining whether the patent is new or not, and is stated in the notice of reasons for refusal.
Japanese nationals can also obtain EP patents.
However, they must of course comply with the EP Law.
This law also applies to foreign nationals who do not understand English, such as Asians and Africans, when seeking an EP patent.
Their inventions cannot be patented without permission under this article.
This means that even for those who do not understand English, the sanction appears as a rejection from the EPO.

The responsibility for not understanding the meaning of this article lies with the reader.
Patent practice is built on the belief that "this law [text] has value and a stable meaning that can be understood and translated."
The exact opposite of Derrida's deconstruction has already been established.
What is it that establishes this fact?