The problem with patents...
...is and always has been that the legal system does not seem to want to accept inventions described in engineering terms. Often they are translated into legalese by replacing common engineering terms like CPU, bus etc with bizarre clauses like 'a computing sub-system in the aspect of appendix A.1' and 'and apparatus for the transfer of information from a computing sub-system in the aspect of appendix A.1 with a data storage subsystem in the aspect of appendix A.2'. After 'legalisation' don't be surprised if your nice little 2 page spark of genius (which was actually quite a nice idea) has ballooned to become a 20 page amorphous blob of stream of concious gibberish.
I suspect that a large number of named inventors do not understand the patents which have been created for their inventions. For the same reason, I think it is likely that most lawyers would not understand the original pseudo-code, UML, block-diagram or whatever other form the original specifciation took. Probably the only people who do understand both the invention and the patent are the relatively small number of patent specialists who also happen to be trained engineers).
The reason Latin was used to much in the legal system is the same reason Latin used to be used in exams in Cambridge - because it kept the un-educated masses out of the system. Although most legal documents are now in English the idea of making the language as obtuse and difficult to follow seems to have lingered on, which brings me to the rub...
We have a system which translates ideas into a form of language which seems to have evolved to make comprehension as difficult as possible, and then we use these translated ideas to sue each other. It actually begins to look like the legal profession invented the whole mess for the sole purpose of creating the maximum amount of business for themselves.
My suggestions are simple...
We trust the medical profession to regulate itself using it's own language, by people who are experts in the medical domain rather than exclusively lawyers (see GMC, FDA etc) so why not the same principle for engineering.
If engineering specifications are good enough for contracts between corporations then they should be good enough for patents. Likewise, since almost all patents and inventions are essentially engineering in nature, arbitration in disputes should be done by a panel of engineers rather than a colony of lawyers**.
Of course... this will never ever happen.
** the correct collective noun for a group of lawyers is 'an eloquence' but I couldn't bring myself to use it. Alternative suggestions welcome.