MLAW_217_INTELLECTUAL_PROPERTY_LAW_PRE­FINAL_EXAM_205 ID: 23256308

ID: 23256308
Name: JUBE KATHREEN OBIDO
Exam Name: MLAW 217 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW PRE-FINAL EXAM 205

1)

A. I would deny the application of Dr. Genome. According to the law, there are
several things that are not patentable. First, varieties of plants and animals,second it
is contrary to public order and morality, third aesthetic designs, fourth,
mathemathical equations, fifth medical procedure for human and animals. At the
case at bar, the patents that was being applied by Dr. Genoes fall under the non-
patentable since it is a medical procedure and it need human trials. Therefore, Dr.
Genome's patent should be denied.

B.
Under the law, Patents are technical solutions to a problem in any field of mankind,
which must be New, Involves inventive steps and must be Industrially applicable.
For Utility Model, this refers mainly to a mechanical invention which two known
objects are combined, but it must still be new and industrially applicable.

2)

I would check if the local farming community has filed a patent for the machines
that they have been using. If yes, I would deny the application of Mr. Hempara
since it will not meet the criteria for a patent to be approved. Under the law, a
patent should be a technical solution to a problem, New, involves inventive steps
and must be industrially applicable. Also, the doctrine of equivalence define that an
invention which is not technically the same but the result of the invention would just
be the same. It is also stated in the law, that the protection of a patent would be
given to the one who first filed an application.
1 of 5

At the case presented, the machine of Mr. Hempara and the local farmer
constitutes a the same results even though it has a diferrent built. So, if the local
ID: 23256308
Name: JUBE KATHREEN OBIDO
MLAW_217_INTELLECTUAL_PROPERTY_LAW_PRE­FINAL_EXAM_205 ID: 23256308
Exam Name: MLAW 217 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW PRE-FINAL EXAM 205

1)

A. I would deny the application of Dr. Genome. According to the law, there are
several things that are not patentable. First, varieties of plants and animals,second it
is contrary to public order and morality, third aesthetic designs, fourth,
mathemathical equations, fifth medical procedure for human and animals. At the
case at bar, the patents that was being applied by Dr. Genoes fall under the non-
patentable since it is a medical procedure and it need human trials. Therefore, Dr.
Genome's patent should be denied.

B.
Under the law, Patents are technical solutions to a problem in any field of mankind,
which must be New, Involves inventive steps and must be Industrially applicable.
For Utility Model, this refers mainly to a mechanical invention which two known
objects are combined, but it must still be new and industrially applicable.

2)

I would check if the local farming community has filed a patent for the machines
that they have been using. If yes, I would deny the application of Mr. Hempara
since it will not meet the criteria for a patent to be approved. Under the law, a
patent should be a technical solution to a problem, New, involves inventive steps
and must be industrially applicable. Also, the doctrine of equivalence define that an
invention which is not technically the same but the result of the invention would just
be the same. It is also stated in the law, that the protection of a patent would be
given to the one who first filed an application.

At the case presented, the machine of Mr. Hempara and the local farmer
constitutes a the same results even though it has a diferrent built. So, if the local
farmer had a patent over the machine, the application of Mr. Hempara will be
denied, but if the local farmer did not file
2 offor
5 a patent of their machine, the

application of Mr. Hempara will granted as long as all the procedural requirement is
met by Mr. Hempara, and since Mr. Hempara will be the first to file of the patent
given to the one who first filed an application.

At the case presented, the machine of Mr. Hempara and the local farmer ID: 23256308
MLAW_217_INTELLECTUAL_PROPERTY_LAW_PRE­FINAL_EXAM_205
constitutes a the same results even though it has a diferrent built. So, if the local
farmer had a patent over the machine, the application of Mr. Hempara will be
denied, but if the local farmer did not file for a patent of their machine, the
application of Mr. Hempara will granted as long as all the procedural requirement is
met by Mr. Hempara, and since Mr. Hempara will be the first to file of the patent
the protection will be granted to him, but it will not prejudice the local farming
community to continually use the machine if they are first user in good faith.

3)

If I were the judge, I would rule in favor of Modernum. According to the law, the
protection of a patents will only last for 20 years. At the case at bar, the 20 years
protection given to Mizer had alredy lapse since the issuance of the patent to Mizer
was in 1989 and Modernum just marketed the drug in 2023.

4)

A. I will deny the application of Ms. Menorria's application. Under the law, there
are several grounds for a patent to be denied or cancel; if the patent is not new, if
the patent is contrary to public order and morality, lacks descriptive detail for an
expert to use for reproduction and failure to pay required fees. At the case of Ms.
Menorria, her application for patent will not be granted since she did not pay the
corresponding fees for her application.

B. I would deny the application of Mr. Enjin. Under the law, filing an application
for patent should met all the required documents specified, as an inventor, he must
submit technical drawing, descriptive abstract of the invention for an expert to use
for reproduction after the 20 years protection and failure to pay required fees. At
the case of Mr. Enjin, the primary purpose for the protection given to the inventor
is the disclosure of his invention, if he refuses to submit a detailed and descriptive
abstract of his invention, then his application will be denied.

C. Under the law, there are several grounds

3 of 5
for a patent to be cancel; if the patent
is not new, if the patent is contrary to public order and morality and failure to pay
required fees. At the case of Mr. Bugnaw, which he is unable to pay the annual
the case of Mr. Enjin, the primary purpose for the protection given to the inventor
is the disclosure of his invention, if he refuses to submit a detailed and descriptive
abstract of his invention, then his application will be denied.
MLAW_217_INTELLECTUAL_PROPERTY_LAW_PRE­FINAL_EXAM_205 ID: 23256308

C. Under the law, there are several grounds for a patent to be cancel; if the patent
is not new, if the patent is contrary to public order and morality and failure to pay
required fees. At the case of Mr. Bugnaw, which he is unable to pay the annual
dues to the patent, it would be ground for the cancelation of his patent.

5)

I would recommend Mr. Baka to revise their transfer agreement. First, it is better
that the law that will govern their agreement must be the law of the Philippines since
Cebu City is listed as a potential venue for arbitration. Other conditions stated in
the agreement is fairly fine.

6)

A. The contention of XM Department Store is not correct, according to the law, an

inventor who has a valid patent of his invention is protected by law, and she has
the right in all aspect on how her invention be dispose for a limited period of time.
If XM Department Store is a good faith prior user, they can still continue the
distribution of the furniture, but if not, Ms. Lamesa should not file a criminal
complaint for unfair competition but instead, she must file a civil action and XM
Department Store should pay for damages and attorneys fee.

B. According to the law, the remedies available to an inventor for infringement are
civil action for recovery of damages made by the infringement, criminal action if
there is a repeatition of infringement, and administrative action if the damages did
not exceed 200,000.00.

7)

I would rule in favor of Bintendo and deny the application of Ploystation. Under
the law,a valid patent given to the pantentee will give him the protection his
invetion. Since Bintendo is the patent holder of device, he has the cause of action
4 of 5
to file civil action of infringement towards ploystation.
7)

I would rule in favor of Bintendo and deny the application

MLAW_217_INTELLECTUAL_PROPERTY_LAW_PRE­FINAL_EXAM_205 of Ploystation. Under
ID: 23256308

the law,a valid patent given to the pantentee will give him the protection his
invetion. Since Bintendo is the patent holder of device, he has the cause of action
to file civil action of infringement towards ploystation.

END OF EXAM

5 of 5