Podcast
Questions and Answers
In the context of patent law, which of the following best encapsulates the quid pro quo inherent in the patent system's rationale?
In the context of patent law, which of the following best encapsulates the quid pro quo inherent in the patent system's rationale?
- Inventors receive exclusive rights for a finite duration in exchange for disclosing their inventions to the public, thereby enriching the public domain after patent expiry. (correct)
- The patent system is primarily designed to protect the economic interests of inventors, ensuring they recoup their investments in research and development.
- Patents serve as a mechanism for governments to control and direct technological innovation towards socially desirable outcomes.
- The state grants inventors absolute and perpetual monopoly rights over their inventions to stimulate unfettered technological progress.
Under Singapore patent law, the jurisdictional nature of a patent implies that a patent granted in Singapore automatically extends protection to all other jurisdictions globally.
Under Singapore patent law, the jurisdictional nature of a patent implies that a patent granted in Singapore automatically extends protection to all other jurisdictions globally.
False (B)
Articulate the critical distinction between 'novelty' and 'inventive step' as distinct patentability criteria under the Singapore Patents Act, illustrating how an invention could satisfy one but fail the other.
Articulate the critical distinction between 'novelty' and 'inventive step' as distinct patentability criteria under the Singapore Patents Act, illustrating how an invention could satisfy one but fail the other.
Novelty requires an invention to be new, not part of the state of the art before the priority date. Inventive step requires the invention to be non-obvious to a person skilled in the art. An invention could be novel because it's not exactly disclosed in prior art, but fail inventive step if it's an obvious modification or combination of existing knowledge.
Section 14(2) of the Singapore Patents Act defines the 'state of the art' as comprising all matter made available to the public before the __________ of the invention.
Section 14(2) of the Singapore Patents Act defines the 'state of the art' as comprising all matter made available to the public before the __________ of the invention.
Match the following terms with their corresponding definitions in the context of patent novelty:
Match the following terms with their corresponding definitions in the context of patent novelty:
Consider a scenario where a research paper detailing a novel chemical compound is published online one week prior to the filing date of a patent application for the same compound. However, the online journal has extremely limited readership and is not indexed in major scientific databases. Under Singapore patent law, would this publication necessarily form part of the 'state of the art'?
Consider a scenario where a research paper detailing a novel chemical compound is published online one week prior to the filing date of a patent application for the same compound. However, the online journal has extremely limited readership and is not indexed in major scientific databases. Under Singapore patent law, would this publication necessarily form part of the 'state of the art'?
The concept of 'mosaicking' in patent novelty assessment refers to the permissible practice of combining features from multiple prior art documents to demonstrate that an invention lacks novelty.
The concept of 'mosaicking' in patent novelty assessment refers to the permissible practice of combining features from multiple prior art documents to demonstrate that an invention lacks novelty.
Explain the 'enabling disclosure' requirement in the context of prior art and patent novelty. Why is it insufficient for prior art to merely mention or hint at an invention to anticipate it?
Explain the 'enabling disclosure' requirement in the context of prior art and patent novelty. Why is it insufficient for prior art to merely mention or hint at an invention to anticipate it?
According to Section 14(10) of the Patents Act, a new medical use of a known substance or composition, even if the substance itself is part of the state of the art, __________ be considered new if the specific medical use was not previously part of the state of the art.
According to Section 14(10) of the Patents Act, a new medical use of a known substance or composition, even if the substance itself is part of the state of the art, __________ be considered new if the specific medical use was not previously part of the state of the art.
A pharmaceutical company discovers a new use for an existing drug to treat a different ailment. The drug itself and its prior uses are well-documented in prior art. However, this new therapeutic application has never been disclosed. If they file a patent application for this new medical use, which of the following statements is most accurate concerning novelty?
A pharmaceutical company discovers a new use for an existing drug to treat a different ailment. The drug itself and its prior uses are well-documented in prior art. However, this new therapeutic application has never been disclosed. If they file a patent application for this new medical use, which of the following statements is most accurate concerning novelty?
Under the 'grace period' provision of Section 14(4) of the Singapore Patents Act, any disclosure of an invention made by the inventor within 12 months prior to filing the patent application is automatically disregarded for novelty assessment.
Under the 'grace period' provision of Section 14(4) of the Singapore Patents Act, any disclosure of an invention made by the inventor within 12 months prior to filing the patent application is automatically disregarded for novelty assessment.
Describe a hypothetical scenario that would fall under the 'breach of confidence' exception within the 'grace period' provision of Section 14(4) of the Singapore Patents Act, and explain why such an exception is justified.
Describe a hypothetical scenario that would fall under the 'breach of confidence' exception within the 'grace period' provision of Section 14(4) of the Singapore Patents Act, and explain why such an exception is justified.
The 'priority date' of a patent application is generally the __________ of filing the application, unless priority is validly claimed from an earlier application.
The 'priority date' of a patent application is generally the __________ of filing the application, unless priority is validly claimed from an earlier application.
An inventor files a patent application in Singapore on 1st March 2024. They had previously filed a corresponding application in a Paris Convention country on 1st October 2023. Assuming all conditions are met, what would be the earliest valid priority date that can be claimed for the Singapore application?
An inventor files a patent application in Singapore on 1st March 2024. They had previously filed a corresponding application in a Paris Convention country on 1st October 2023. Assuming all conditions are met, what would be the earliest valid priority date that can be claimed for the Singapore application?
The 'person skilled in the art' is legally defined as an expert in the relevant field, possessing exceptional inventive capabilities and a deep understanding of cutting-edge research.
The 'person skilled in the art' is legally defined as an expert in the relevant field, possessing exceptional inventive capabilities and a deep understanding of cutting-edge research.
Explain the role of the 'person skilled in the art' in assessing both novelty and inventive step in patent law. How does this hypothetical individual help maintain objectivity in patent examination?
Explain the role of the 'person skilled in the art' in assessing both novelty and inventive step in patent law. How does this hypothetical individual help maintain objectivity in patent examination?
An invention is considered to lack novelty if it is '__________' by prior art, meaning the prior art fully discloses all the essential elements of the claimed invention.
An invention is considered to lack novelty if it is '__________' by prior art, meaning the prior art fully discloses all the essential elements of the claimed invention.
Which of the following best describes the 'Windsurfing' test, as applied in Singapore patent law, for assessing inventive step?
Which of the following best describes the 'Windsurfing' test, as applied in Singapore patent law, for assessing inventive step?
In assessing inventive step, 'mosaicking' of prior art is generally permitted, allowing examiners to combine teachings from multiple prior art documents to argue that an invention would have been obvious.
In assessing inventive step, 'mosaicking' of prior art is generally permitted, allowing examiners to combine teachings from multiple prior art documents to argue that an invention would have been obvious.
Explain the concept of 'common general knowledge' in the context of inventive step assessment. What types of information are typically considered to be part of the 'common general knowledge' of a person skilled in the art?
Explain the concept of 'common general knowledge' in the context of inventive step assessment. What types of information are typically considered to be part of the 'common general knowledge' of a person skilled in the art?
The assessment of inventive step must avoid '__________ analysis', meaning one should not use hindsight or knowledge of the invention itself to argue that it would have been obvious.
The assessment of inventive step must avoid '__________ analysis', meaning one should not use hindsight or knowledge of the invention itself to argue that it would have been obvious.
Consider an invention that is a minor modification of a known device, resulting in a slight improvement in efficiency. While novel, which of the following phrases, often used in inventive step assessment, would be most likely applied to argue against its patentability?
Consider an invention that is a minor modification of a known device, resulting in a slight improvement in efficiency. While novel, which of the following phrases, often used in inventive step assessment, would be most likely applied to argue against its patentability?
Simplicity of an invention is inherently indicative of a lack of inventive step; complex inventions are more likely to be considered inventive.
Simplicity of an invention is inherently indicative of a lack of inventive step; complex inventions are more likely to be considered inventive.
Explain why 'commercial success' and 'long felt want' can sometimes be considered as secondary indicia of inventive step, even though they are not primary determinants.
Explain why 'commercial success' and 'long felt want' can sometimes be considered as secondary indicia of inventive step, even though they are not primary determinants.
Section 15 of the Patents Act states that an invention involves an inventive step if it is '__________ to a person skilled in the art'.
Section 15 of the Patents Act states that an invention involves an inventive step if it is '__________ to a person skilled in the art'.
In the context of patent law, what is meant by 'industrial application' as a patentability requirement under Section 16 of the Singapore Patents Act?
In the context of patent law, what is meant by 'industrial application' as a patentability requirement under Section 16 of the Singapore Patents Act?
The 'sufficiency' requirement under Section 25(4) of the Patents Act mandates that a patent specification must not only disclose the invention but also provide instructions enabling a person with an IQ of 160 to replicate it.
The 'sufficiency' requirement under Section 25(4) of the Patents Act mandates that a patent specification must not only disclose the invention but also provide instructions enabling a person with an IQ of 160 to replicate it.
Explain the rationale behind the 'sufficiency' requirement in patent law. Why is it essential for a patent specification to provide an enabling disclosure of the invention?
Explain the rationale behind the 'sufficiency' requirement in patent law. Why is it essential for a patent specification to provide an enabling disclosure of the invention?
Section __________ of the Patents Act pertains to the requirement of 'inventive step' for patentability.
Section __________ of the Patents Act pertains to the requirement of 'inventive step' for patentability.
Which of the following scenarios would most likely be considered a 'novel' invention under Singapore patent law?
Which of the following scenarios would most likely be considered a 'novel' invention under Singapore patent law?
If a patent application fails to meet even one of the patentability requirements (novelty, inventive step, industrial application, sufficiency), it will be rejected.
If a patent application fails to meet even one of the patentability requirements (novelty, inventive step, industrial application, sufficiency), it will be rejected.
In your expert opinion, what is the most challenging patentability criterion to assess objectively, and why? Justify your choice with reference to the concepts discussed.
In your expert opinion, what is the most challenging patentability criterion to assess objectively, and why? Justify your choice with reference to the concepts discussed.
The fundamental rationale behind the patent system is to __________ innovation by granting limited monopoly rights.
The fundamental rationale behind the patent system is to __________ innovation by granting limited monopoly rights.
Which of the following best illustrates the 'bargain' inherent in the patent system?
Which of the following best illustrates the 'bargain' inherent in the patent system?
Patent rights are considered 'natural rights' of inventors, universally recognized and enforceable across all countries.
Patent rights are considered 'natural rights' of inventors, universally recognized and enforceable across all countries.
Contrast the objectives of the patent system with the objectives of trade secret protection. In what situations might an inventor strategically choose trade secret protection over patent protection, and vice versa?
Contrast the objectives of the patent system with the objectives of trade secret protection. In what situations might an inventor strategically choose trade secret protection over patent protection, and vice versa?
The maximum term of patent protection in Singapore, subject to payment of renewal fees, is __________ years from the date of filing.
The maximum term of patent protection in Singapore, subject to payment of renewal fees, is __________ years from the date of filing.
Which of the following is NOT a key term directly related to the 'novelty' requirement in patent law?
Which of the following is NOT a key term directly related to the 'novelty' requirement in patent law?
For an invention to be considered 'new', it must be absolutely unknown and have no connection whatsoever to any pre-existing technology or knowledge.
For an invention to be considered 'new', it must be absolutely unknown and have no connection whatsoever to any pre-existing technology or knowledge.
Explain the significance of the 'priority date' in determining the 'state of the art' for novelty assessment. Why is this date crucial for patentability?
Explain the significance of the 'priority date' in determining the 'state of the art' for novelty assessment. Why is this date crucial for patentability?
The 'Windsurfing' test for inventive step is a __________ approach, involving a structured series of steps.
The 'Windsurfing' test for inventive step is a __________ approach, involving a structured series of steps.
In the context of Singapore's patent law, consider a hypothetical scenario where an inventor, Dr. Aris, publicly presents a novel enzymatic pathway at an international biochemistry conference which is then published both in the conference proceedings and on a publicly accessible preprint server. Subsequently, within nine months, a rival research group independently develops an identical, yet non-obvious, enzymatic pathway and applies for a patent. Dr. Aris then files for a patent eleven months after the conference. Which of the following statements about Dr. Aris's patent application is most accurate?
In the context of Singapore's patent law, consider a hypothetical scenario where an inventor, Dr. Aris, publicly presents a novel enzymatic pathway at an international biochemistry conference which is then published both in the conference proceedings and on a publicly accessible preprint server. Subsequently, within nine months, a rival research group independently develops an identical, yet non-obvious, enzymatic pathway and applies for a patent. Dr. Aris then files for a patent eleven months after the conference. Which of the following statements about Dr. Aris's patent application is most accurate?
In Singapore patent law, the concept of 'state of the art' is assessed strictly on a territorial basis, meaning that only prior art available within Singapore is considered when evaluating the novelty of an invention.
In Singapore patent law, the concept of 'state of the art' is assessed strictly on a territorial basis, meaning that only prior art available within Singapore is considered when evaluating the novelty of an invention.
According to Singapore's Patents Act, specifically Section 14(10), the fact that a substance or composition forms part of the ______ shall not prevent an invention from being taken to be new if the use of the substance or composition in any such method does not form part of the ______.
According to Singapore's Patents Act, specifically Section 14(10), the fact that a substance or composition forms part of the ______ shall not prevent an invention from being taken to be new if the use of the substance or composition in any such method does not form part of the ______.
Explain how the 'Windsurfing test', as applied in Singapore patent law for assessing inventive step (non-obviousness), balances the need to reward genuine innovation with the principle that a patent monopoly should not stifle normal technological progress and workshop variations.
Explain how the 'Windsurfing test', as applied in Singapore patent law for assessing inventive step (non-obviousness), balances the need to reward genuine innovation with the principle that a patent monopoly should not stifle normal technological progress and workshop variations.
Match the following concepts related to patent novelty with their correct descriptions under Singapore patent law:
Match the following concepts related to patent novelty with their correct descriptions under Singapore patent law:
Flashcards
What is a Patent?
What is a Patent?
Monopoly rights granted by the State to those who have invented novel products/processes. Protection lasts for a maximum of 20 years.
Rationale behind patents
Rationale behind patents
Secures for the inventor, for a limited time, the exclusive use of his invention and adds fuel of interest to the discovery.
Jurisdictional Nature of Patents
Jurisdictional Nature of Patents
Rights are granted separately in each country or jurisdiction. One invention can have multiple protection instances.
Patentability Requirements
Patentability Requirements
Signup and view all the flashcards
State of the Art
State of the Art
Signup and view all the flashcards
Priority Date
Priority Date
Signup and view all the flashcards
Person Skilled in the Art
Person Skilled in the Art
Signup and view all the flashcards
Anticipate
Anticipate
Signup and view all the flashcards
Made Available to the Public
Made Available to the Public
Signup and view all the flashcards
No Mosaicking
No Mosaicking
Signup and view all the flashcards
Enabling Disclosure
Enabling Disclosure
Signup and view all the flashcards
Assessment Steps for Novelty.
Assessment Steps for Novelty.
Signup and view all the flashcards
Exceptions to Novelty (Section 14(4))
Exceptions to Novelty (Section 14(4))
Signup and view all the flashcards
Specific Exceptions (Section 14(4))
Specific Exceptions (Section 14(4))
Signup and view all the flashcards
Inventive Step
Inventive Step
Signup and view all the flashcards
Inventive Step Assessment
Inventive Step Assessment
Signup and view all the flashcards
Windsurfing Test Stages
Windsurfing Test Stages
Signup and view all the flashcards
Study Notes
Patents Overview
- Patents grant monopoly rights by the State to inventors of novel products or processes.
- These inventions must involve an inventive step over what has come before and be capable of industrial application.
- Protection can last for a maximum of 20 years.
- The patent specification is placed on the Patents Register.
- After patent expiration, anyone may exercise the patented invention without restriction.
- Requirements for patentability include disclosing sufficient detail so a skilled person can perform the invention.
Rationale and Philosophy Behind Patents
- Patent laws began in England in 1624.
- Patents secure the inventor's exclusive use for a limited time, encouraging genius in discovery and production.
- Intellectual property rights are cornerstones for global collaboration.
- Innovation and technology are promoted with IP, building a better world by balancing the risks and rewards of innovation while meeting global needs.
- Patents represents a bargain between state and inventor.
- The inventor gets a monopoly for a limited period.
- The invention must be publicly disclosed.
- Patents encourage innovation, enhance quality of life, create jobs, spurs economic growth and increases knowledge in the public domain.
Jurisdictional Nature of Patents
- Patent rights are territorial, therefore separate protection is required in individual jurisdictions.
- One invention could lead to multiple patent grants and renewals.
- Validity findings and enforcement outcomes can differ.
- Scenario: A company patents a new drug in Singapore but does not seek protection in Malaysia. A generic version is produced in Malaysia and sold there. The Singapore patent offers no protection against sales in Malaysia.
Key Patentability Requirements
- To be patentable an invention must fulfil these requirements as stipulated in the Patents Act.
- Section 13(1)
- New (s 14)
- Involve an inventive step (s 15)
- Capable of industrial application (s 16)
- Section 25(4)
- Sufficiency
Newness Requirement (Section 14 Patents Act)
- An invention must be new, meaning it does not form part of the state of the art.
- The state of the art includes matter made available to the public before the priority date.
- "Prior art" is a broad concept, potentially including patent specifications, journal articles, prototypes, lecture content, and chemical compositions.
- Availability to a single member of the public is sufficient to qualify as “made available to the public”.
- Singapore law adheres to a global standard, considering what is available anywhere, not just in Singapore.
- An invention consisting of a substance/composition for medical use can still be new even if the substance is known, provided the specific use is novel.
- Scenario: A researcher discovers that a common household cleaning agent can effectively treat a rare skin condition. Although the chemical composition is known, its new medical use can be patented.
- The priority date serves as the cut-off date for determining the state of the art.
- Section 17(1) states the priority date is the date of filing the application.
- Priority can be claimed from the date of filing an earlier application if within a Paris Convention country/WTO member or filed in the preceding 12 months and discloses matter supporting the present invention.
New - Key Terms
- State of the art - What information has already been made public.
- Priority date - The cutoff date for determining the state of the art.
- Person skilled in the art - Someone in the industry with common knowledge
- Anticipate - The concept of whether a prior art anticipates the invention.
Person Skilled in the Art
- Terminology for someone with experience in the relevant field.
- This person is reasonably intelligent but unimaginative.
- *Case example, Lee Tat Cheng v Maka GPS Technologies
- A "person skilled in the art" has technology experience in the industry, has common general knowledge as well as practical interest, and can work the patent.
- *Case example First Choice Currency Pte Ltd 1 SLR(R) 335 and Ng Kok Cheng v Chua Say Tiong.
- It is important not to confuse the "person skilled in the art" with an "expert".
Anticipate
- Prior art anticipates an invention if the invention has been previously disclosed in the prior art.
- Key concepts include "made available to the public," no mosaicking and enabling disclosure.
- Even if something is only available to one member of the public, the condition for being "made available to the public" is still met.
- Case example, Institut Pasteur v Genelabs Diagnostics Pte Ltd SGHC 53
No Mosaicking
- Reading prior art collectively rather than individually is considered "mosaicking".
- There is a rule against Mosaicking, and a court cannot assess a series of prior art cannot be combined in a novelty assesment.
- A court can compare a single prior art with the invention in issue.
- It is acceptable that the series of prior art lead a person skilled in the art to the invent, but that is more relevant to the concept of "inventive step" and not "novelty".
- An exception includes situations when a later document refers to an earlier document, or a series of documents refers to each other; only parts of those documents can be mosaicked.
- Case example Genelabs Diagnostics 3 SLR(R) 530
Enabling Disclosure
- Prior disclosure has to be an "enabling disclosure"
- Must lead to the the invention due to the the teachings in the prior publication.
- It shouldn't be a miss or vague, but be properly contained within the prior art in question.
- Case example: Muhlbauer AG v Manufacturing Integration Technology Ltd 2 SLR 724
New - Assessment
- The court follows 3 steps to perform an assessment of newness
- Assesses the invention identified in the patent.
- Assesses whether the relevant state of the prior art.
- Compares whether the invention is part of the state of the art, after comparing both prior points.
- Claim construction occurs from the perspective of a "person skilled in the art".
- Satisfactory evidence is necessary that the disclosure and use of a prior art did occur.
- Case example, Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd v United Overseas Bank
- The assessor must consider several points when considering whether an invention has been anticipated:
- The assessor takes the perspective of a person skilled in the art.
- The assessor mustn't mosaic different prior art.
- The assessor mustn't invoke knowledge coming into existence before the existence of the prior art.
- The teachings need to inevitably have led to the invention.
Exceptions To Newness
- Section 14(4) Patents Act outlines a few exceptions to the rules of newness.
- An invention can still be considered newness if disclosure of the invention occurred in a few defined events up to 12 months before it was patented. These events can be disregarded.
- Where the disclosure was due to a breach of confidence.
- Where the inventor displayed at an international exhibition.
- Where the inventor described the new tech in an academic paper.
- Other circumstances
Inventive Step (Section 15 Patents Act)
- An invention must involve an inventive step.
- Patents must not be obvious to someone skilled in the art with having regard to what forms part of the state of the art.
- The inventive step is non-obvious.
- It helps encourages innovation.
- The monopoly granted is not supposed to restrict obvious changes/workshopping.
Inventive Step - Key Concepts
- Assume the mantle of person skilled in the art.
- Mosaicking is allowed, if obvious.
- Inventive Concept vs Inventive step.
- Common general knowledge vs public knowledge.
- It should be fair to inventors and avoid ex post facto analysis.
- Assume perspective of person skilled in the art.
Inventive Step Assessment
- Two approaches to assessment are structural and simplicity.
- The Windsurfing test provides structure.
- First, identify the inventive concept.
- Second, attribute common general knowledge to the skilled person.
- Third, identify differences between prior art and the invention.
- Fourth, decide if those differences are obvious to the skilled person, or require some degree of invention.
- Case example: Cases like Windsurfing v Tabur Marine,
- Ultimately it is important to apply simplicity wherever possible.
- Case example: Merck v Pharmaforte, Genelabs and First Currency Choice Pte Ltd v Main-Line
- Some formulations of inventive step are "obvious to try" or "lying on the road".
- *Case exampls, Merck v Pharmaforte and Mühlbauer v MIT.
Inventive Step - Considerations
- Inventiveness isn't barred to something that is simple.
- *Case example, FE Global Electronics v Trek Technology and First Currency Choice Pte Ltd.
- The wideness of the gap between existing technology and the new invention doesn't measure inventiveness.
- Case example, First Currency Choice Pte Ltd.
- The amount of time something takes isn't determinative.
Studying That Suits You
Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.