Patent law MCQ Quiz in தமிழ் - Objective Question with Answer for Patent law - இலவச PDF ஐப் பதிவிறக்கவும்

Key Points

Filling of Claims (C):This is the initial step in the patent application process where the inventor describes the invention in detail and specifies the scope of protection being sought. Hence, starting withC is correct.

Publication of Application (B): After the filing of claims, the patent application is published to make the information available to the public. This typically occurs 18 months after the filing date or the priority date. Therefore,B followsC, which aligns with the sequence.

Request for Examination (D): Following publication, the patent application must be formally examined. However, this does not happen automatically in many jurisdictions; the applicant must request an examination within a prescribed period. Thus,D logically comes afterB.

Grant of Patents (E): If the examination process concludes that the invention is patentable, meeting all the necessary criteria such as novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability, the patent is granted. This makesE the subsequent step after D.

Opposition under section 25(2) of the Patents Act, 1970 (A): After the grant of a patent, there is a window during which third parties can oppose the patent. This post-grant opposition is a final step in the process, ensuring that any concerns about the patent's validity are addressed before it remains in force. Therefore,A is the last step in the sequence.

Given the explanation above:

C (Filling of Claims) is the correct starting point as it initiates the patent application process.

B (Publication of Application) correctly follows since the application must be made public after the claims are filed.

D (Request for Examination) is accurately placed after publication since the examination is a crucial step that follows.

E (Grant of Patents) logically comes after the examination has been requested and completed successfully.

A (Opposition under section 25(2) of the Patents Act, 1970) is correctly positioned as the final step, allowing for opposition after the grant.

Hence, the correct answer is option 3 (C, B, D, E, A), making the statement in the question accurate.

The correct answer is 'Doctrine of Equivalents'

Key Points

• Doctrine of Equivalents:
  • This legal doctrine allows a court to hold a party liable for patent infringement even if the infringing device or process does not fall within the literal scope of a patent claim.
  • The doctrine is based on the principle that an infringing product or process can still be considered equivalent to the patented invention if it performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve the same result.
  • The main goal is to prevent an infringer from avoiding liability by making only insubstantial changes to a patented invention.

Additional Information

• Doctrine of Literal Conflict:
  • This is not a recognized doctrine in patent law.
  • The term might suggest a direct conflict between patent claims, but it does not address the nuances of equivalents and infringement.
• Doctrine of Deceptive Similarity:
  • This doctrine is more commonly associated with trademark law, where it prevents the use of marks that are deceptively similar to existing ones.
  • It does not apply to patent infringement cases.
• Doctrine of Colourable Deception:
  • This term is not a standard doctrine in patent law.
  • It may refer to attempts to deceive by making minor changes, but it is not a recognized legal standard for patent infringement.

The correct option is 'Working of patenting process'.

Key Points

• The Bayer Corporation Vs. Union of India, 2011 case primarily dealt with the issue of the working of the patenting process in India.
• This case was significant in the context of the Indian patent regime, particularly concerning compulsory licensing provisions under the Indian Patents Act, 1970.
• The legal battle revolved around Bayer Corporation's patented drug Nexavar (sorafenib tosylate), used for treating kidney and liver cancer, and the issuance of a compulsory license to Natco Pharma, an Indian generic drug manufacturer.
• The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) decision to grant a compulsory license was based on several grounds, including the patented drug's affordability, availability, and the requirement that patented inventions must be worked in the territory of India.
• The case highlighted the balance between protecting patent rights and addressing public health concerns, particularly in ensuring access to life-saving medicines.

Additional Information

• The ruling in the Bayer Corporation Vs. Union of India case set a precedent for compulsory licensing in India, underlining the importance of the 'working' requirement of patents within the country.
• It also shed light on the broader debate over patent laws and access to medicines, a critical issue for many developing countries facing public health challenges.

The correct answer is Option 1.

Key Points Section 4 of the Patents Act, 1970: Inventions relating to atomic energy not patentable.—
No patent shall be granted in respect of an invention relating to atomic energy falling within sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (33 of 1962).