VI. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293)

Question 1

VI. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293)

A. Patents
1. Patentable vs. Non-patentable Inventions – Section 22

Answer 1

Patentable vs. Non-Patentable Inventions: Understanding the Divide

A) Key Differences:
1. Problem-Solving vs. Abstract Ideas:
Patentable inventions solve technical problems in a specific field. Non-patentable inventions are abstract ideas, methods, or discoveries (e.g., scientific theories, mathematical formulas).
2. Industrial Applicability:
A patentable invention must have a practical use in an industry. Non-patentable inventions may lack a practical application or have more general uses.
3. Novelty and Inventive Step:
Patentable inventions must be new (not already invented) and involve an inventive step (not obvious to someone skilled in the field). Non-patentable inventions may not meet these criteria.

B) Similarities:
1. Originality:
Both patentable and non-patentable inventions require some level of originality or creativity.
2. Potential Value:
Both can hold value, even if they aren’t patentable. Non-patentable inventions might be protected by other forms of intellectual property, like trade secrets.
3. Legal Protection:
While patents offer exclusive rights, non-patentable inventions may still benefit from other legal protections depending on their nature.

• Examples:
• Patentable: A new design for a solar panel (technical solution, industrial application)
• Non-Patentable: E=mc² (scientific theory, abstract idea)
• Patentable: A new drug with unique properties for treating a disease (technical solution, industrial application, novelty, inventive step)
• Non-Patentable: A method for doing business calculations using existing software (method using known tools, not necessarily inventive)
• Patentable: A new medical device for performing surgery (technical solution, industrial application, may need to meet additional medical device regulations)
• Non-Patentable: The concept of using music therapy for relaxation (treatment method, abstract idea)
• Tips for Remembering:
• Patentable inventions are like practical solutions to technical problems.
• Non-patentable inventions are more like abstract ideas, methods, or discoveries.
• Think “problem-solving” for patentable and “abstract concepts” for non-patentable.

Question 2

VI. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293)

A. Patents

2. Ownership of a Patent – Sections 28-30

Answer 2

Who Owns the Patent? Understanding Patent Ownership (RA 165a)

These sections define who has the legal right to a patent in the Philippines.

1) Default Ownership (Section 28):
* The inventor (the person who created the invention) generally has the right to the patent.
* If multiple people jointly invented something together, they co-own the patent.

2) Competing Applications (Section 29):
* If two or more people independently invent the same thing, the first to file a patent application gets the rights.
* “First to file” means the earliest complete application with the required information.

3) Inventions Made During Employment (Section 30):
* Who owns the patent depends on the circumstances and any agreements:
A) Commissioned Work:** If someone hires you to invent something, they typically own the patent unless a different agreement exists.
B) Employee Inventions:**
- If the invention is unrelated to your job duties (even if you use company resources), you likely own the patent.
- If the invention stems from your regular job duties, your employer likely owns the patent (unless otherwise agreed).

• Examples (Current Events):
  A) University Research:** A university professor develops a new medical treatment during their research. By default, the professor would be the inventor and own the patent rights (Section 28). However, the university might have an agreement with the professor stating shared ownership or rights to the invention.
  B) Startup Collaboration:** Two programmers working independently on a new software application come together and combine their ideas to create a final product. Since they jointly invented it, they would co-own the patent under Section 28.
  C) Employee Invention:** An engineer invents a new energy-saving device while working for a manufacturing company. If this invention falls outside the scope of the engineer’s regular job duties (e.g., improving a specific product assigned to them), they would likely own the patent (Section 30.2(a)). However, if the invention is directly related to their assigned tasks or improving existing company technology (Section 30.2(b)), the company would likely own the patent unless there’s a specific agreement stating otherwise.
• Tips for Remembering:
• Inventors generally own patents, but “first to file” applies in close calls.
• Employment contracts can affect ownership, so inventors should be mindful of these agreements.

Question 3

VI. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293)

A. Patents

3. Rights and Limitations of Patent Owner – Sections 71-77

Answer 3

Patent Owner’s Rights and Limitations: A Bar Exam Breakdown (RA 165a)

A) Rights of a Patent Owner (Section 71):
1) Exclusivity:** The patent owner has the exclusive right to:
* Control the production, sale, import, and use of their patented product.
* Prevent unauthorized use of their patented process.
2) Licensing:** They can license (give permission) others to use their invention for a fee.
3) Assignment:** They can sell or transfer ownership of the patent.

• Think “Control” and “Profit” for Patent Owner Rights.
  Example:
  A company invents a new solar panel design. The patent grants them exclusive rights to manufacture, sell, and import these panels, preventing others from copying their design. They can also license the technology to other companies for a royalty fee.

B) Limitations on Patent Rights (Section 72):
1) Exhaustion of Rights:** Once a patented product is legitimately sold (e.g., by the owner or with their permission), others can freely resell it (except for pharmaceuticals).
2) Non-commercial Use:** Limited, non-commercial use of the invention is allowed, as long as it doesn’t hurt the patent owner’s business.
3) Experimental Use:** Experimenting with the invention for research or educational purposes is permitted.
4) Government Use:** In specific situations (national emergency, public health needs), the government can authorize use of the invention, with compensation to the patent owner.

• Think “Exceptions” and “Fair Use” for Limitations.
  Example:
  A student builds a small model using a patented building block design for a school science project. This non-commercial, educational use likely falls under the limitations on patent rights.

C) Patent Infringement (Section 76):
* Making, using, selling, or importing a patented invention without permission is infringement.
* Patent owners can sue infringers for damages, attorney fees, and injunctions (court orders to stop infringement).

• Think “Unauthorized Copying” for Infringement.**
  Example:
  A company starts manufacturing and selling solar panels that are identical copies of the patented design mentioned earlier. This would likely be considered patent infringement.
• Tips for Remembering:
• Patent owners have control over their inventions and can profit from them.
• Some exceptions and limitations exist, like non-commercial and government use.
• Unauthorized copying is infringement, and patent owners can take legal action.

Question 4

VI. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293)

A. Patents

4. Patent Infringement – Sections 76-84

Answer 4

Here are the key phrases related to the rules on patent infringement based on the search results:

1. Patent Infringement: The unlawful use, selling, or copying of a patented invention without permission from the patent holder.
2. Direct Infringement: Occurs when an individual or entity manufactures, sells, attempts to sell, or imports a patented invention without permission.
3. Indirect Infringement: Involves actively inducing a third party to infringe a patent, which can be categorized into:
   
   • Induced Infringement: The infringer knows about the patent and knowingly causes another party to infringe it.
   • Contributory Infringement: The infringer knowingly provides a component that helps another party infringe the patent, with no substantial non-infringing use.
4. Claim Construction: The process by which a court interprets the claims of a patent to determine the scope of protection.
5. Literal Infringement: A direct violation of the claims of a patent that requires a match between the accused product and the patented claims.
6. Doctrine of Equivalents: Allows for infringement claims even if the accused product does not literally infringe the patent, provided it performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way.
7. Triple Identity Test: A test to determine if differences between the patented invention and the accused product are immaterial, focusing on whether the features perform the same function in a similar way.
8. Civil Remedies: Patent holders can seek remedies such as monetary damages, injunctive relief, and potential ongoing royalties for patent infringement.
9. Patent Validity: To establish infringement, the patent holder must demonstrate ownership of a valid and enforceable patent.
10. Scope of Protection: Defined by the claims of the patent, which inform the public of what is not allowed without the patent holder’s permission.

These phrases encapsulate the essential concepts and legal frameworks surrounding patent infringement, providing a foundational understanding of the subject.

Question 5

VI. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293)

A. Patents

5. Remedies for Infringement – Sections 79-80

Answer 5

Under Philippine patent law, the top 3 remedies for patent infringement are:

1. Civil Action for Damages and Injunction
   
   • The patent owner can bring a civil action to recover damages sustained due to the infringement[1][2].
   • The court can award damages, including a reasonable royalty if actual damages are inadequate or cannot be readily ascertained[2].
   • The court may award damages up to three times the amount of actual damages, depending on the circumstances of the case[2].
   • The patent owner can also secure an injunction for the protection of their rights[1][2].
2. Destruction or Disposal of Infringing Goods
   
   • The court is empowered to order the disposal of infringing goods, materials, and implements predominantly used in the infringement outside the channels of commerce, or their destruction without compensation[1].
3. Criminal Liability for Repeated Infringement
   
   • If the infringement is repeated by the infringer, they will be criminally liable and shall suffer imprisonment from six months to three years, and be liable for a fine of PHP100,000 (USD1,750) to PHP300,000[1].

Other remedies include the cancellation of the patent if found invalid[2], and the presumption of infringement if an identical product is made by a patented process[4].

The Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines provides these remedies to protect the rights of patent owners against infringement and ensure they can effectively enforce their patents.

Question 6

VI. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293)

A. Patents

6. Cancellation – Sections 61-66

Answer 6

• Lack of novelty or inventiveness[1]
• Insufficient disclosure of the invention[1]
• Fraudulent derivation of the invention from another person[1][2]

• Any interested person may file a petition for cancellation[1][2]
• The petition must be in writing, verified, and specify the grounds[2]
• Supporting documents must be filed with the petition[2]

• The Director shall serve notice of the petition on the patentee and interested parties[2]
• Notice of the filing of the petition shall be published in the Official Gazette[2]
• A hearing shall be conducted on the petition[2]

• If the Director finds sufficient grounds, they shall order the patent or claims cancelled[2]
• The order shall not take effect until the time for appeal has elapsed or the appeal judgment is final[2]
• When the order becomes final, rights conferred by the patent shall terminate[2]
• Notice of cancellation shall be published in the Official Gazette[2]

• If the petition is successful on the ground of fraudulent derivation, the true inventor may obtain a patent[2]
• The true inventor must file a patent application within 6 months after the cancellation order becomes final[2]
• The term of the new patent shall expire 17 years from the date of issue of the cancelled patent[2]

These key phrases summarize the main rules and procedures for cancelling a patent in the Philippines, including the grounds, filing requirements, notice and hearing process, and effects of a successful cancellation petition.

Question 7

VI. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293)

A. Patents

7. Compulsory Licensing – Sections 93-102

Answer 7

Compulsory licensing serves as a crucial tool in patent law, particularly in the context of public health and welfare. It aims to prevent the monopolistic practices of patent holders, promote local production, and ensure that essential products are accessible to the public, especially in times of need. By allowing governments to intervene in the patent system, compulsory licensing seeks to balance the interests of innovation with the rights of consumers and the broader public.

Question 8

VI. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293)

A. Patents

8. Voluntary Licensing – Sections 85-92

Question 9

VI. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293)

B. Trademarks
1. Marks vs. Collective Marks vs. Trade Names – Section 121

Answer 9

1. Marks (Trademark/Service Mark):
   * Function: Distinguish the goods or services of one business from others.
   * Examples: Logos, slogans, product names (e.g., Apple logo, McDonald’s slogan “I’m lovin’ it”, “Band-Aid” brand of adhesive bandages).
   * Current Event: A social media influencer creates a unique catchphrase and uses it in their merchandise. This catchphrase could be a trademark if it identifies their brand and distinguishes their merchandise from others.
2. Collective Marks:**
   * Function: Identify a group of businesses sharing a common characteristic (e.g., location, quality standards).
   * Used By: Typically associations or cooperatives.
   * Examples: “Fair Trade Certified” label, organic food certification marks.
   * Current Event: A coffee cooperative in a specific region gets a collective mark for their coffee beans. This mark signifies the origin and potentially the quality of the coffee produced by members of the cooperative.
3. Trade Name:
   * Function: Identify and distinguish a business itself, not necessarily its specific products or services.
   * Examples: Company names, business names (e.g., Google, Coca-Cola, Starbucks).
   * Current Event: A new online grocery delivery service launches with a unique name. This name would be considered a trade name as it identifies the business itself.

• Key Differences (Remember “MDC” for Easy Recall):
• Marks (M): Distinguish Goods/Services.
• Collective Marks (C): Identify a Group with Common Traits.
• Trade Names (T): Identify the Business Itself.

Bonus Tip: While trade names aren’t automatically protected under trademark law, they might gain some protection through common law rights if they become well-established and recognized in the market.

Question 10

VI. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293)

B. Trademarks

2. Non-Registrable Marks – Section 123

Answer 10

The No-Go Zones: Understanding Non-Registrable Trademarks in the Philippines

The Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (RA 1844) outlines several categories of marks that cannot be registered as trademarks. Remember these as “No Regrets” to avoid wasting time on unregistrable trademarks:

1) Moral & Legal Hurdles (a, b, c, m):
* Trademarks cannot be immoral, deceptive, or scandalous.
* They can’t disrespect national symbols, institutions, or individuals (especially deceased presidents without their widow’s consent).
* Using the Philippine flag or insignia, or imitating foreign ones, is also a no-no.
Example :
A clothing brand wants to register a logo featuring a highly offensive caricature of a national hero. This would likely violate Section 123.1(a) for being disrespectful.

2) Protecting Existing Rights (d, e, f):
* Marks that are identical or confusingly similar to existing registered trademarks, especially for similar goods or services, cannot be registered.
* This extends to well-known international marks, even if not registered locally.
Example:
A new bakery wants to register the trademark “Golden Croissants” but there’s already a famous bakery with the registered trademark “Goldie’s Croissants.” This would likely violate Section 123.1(d)(iii).

3) Avoiding Deception (g):
* Trademarks can’t mislead consumers about the product’s quality, nature, or origin.
Example:
A clothing brand wants to register a trademark with a fake designer label. This would violate Section 123.1(g) as it misrepresents the origin of the product.

4) Generic & Descriptive Terms (h, i, j):
* Generic terms (like “computer” for computers) and customary terms (like “hot” for spicy food) cannot be trademarks because they describe the product itself.
* Signs or symbols solely indicating characteristics or functionalities are also not registrable.
Example:
A company wants to register the trademark “Red Ball” for red bouncy balls. This would likely violate Section 123.1(h) or (j) as “red” and “ball” are generic descriptions.

5) Shapes & Colors (k, l) with Exceptions:
* Shapes dictated by the product’s function or basic colors alone cannot be trademarks.
**Exception:
A uniquely shaped chocolate bar or a brand known for using a specific color combination might be able to register those elements if they have become distinctive over time (Section 123.2).

• Key Takeaways:
• Trademarks should be distinctive and not mislead consumers.
• Respect national symbols, existing trademarks, and avoid generic terms.
• Simple shapes and colors might be registrable if they acquire distinctiveness.

Question 11

VI. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293)

B. Trademarks

3. Ownership and Registration – Section 152

Question 12

VI. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293)

B. Trademarks

4. Rights and Limitations of Trademark Owner – Section 147

Question 13

VI. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293)

B. Trademarks

5. Trademark Infringement – Section 155

Question 14

VI. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293)

B. Trademarks

6. Unfair Competition – Section 168

Question 15

VI. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293)

B. Trademarks

7. Cancellation – Sections 151

Question 16

VI. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293)

C. Copyrights
1. Copyrightable Works – Sections 172-173

Answer 16

Understanding Copyrightable Works in the Philippines (RA 1844): A Bar Exam Guide

These sections of RA 1844 (Intellectual Property Code) define what kind of creative works are eligible for copyright protection in the Philippines. Remember “O-M-G, It’s Copyrighted!” for easy recall:

1. Originality (Section 172.2):
   * The work must be an original creation, meaning it wasn’t copied from something else.
   * The level of creativity or quality doesn’t matter; even simple works can be copyrighted.
   Example: A student writes a blog post with their unique insights on a current event. The writing itself, even if factually based, can be copyrighted material.
2. Broad Categories of Copyrightable Works (Section 172.1):
   * Literary Works (O): Writings of all kinds (books, articles, poems, scripts, song lyrics, etc.).
   * Musical Works (M): Musical compositions with or without lyrics.
   * Artistic Works (G): Drawings, paintings, sculptures, photographs, films, architectural designs, etc.
   Example (Current Event):
   A musician creates a new song with original lyrics and melody. Both the musical composition and the lyrics are copyrightable works.
3. Derivative Works (Section 173.1):
   * These are new works based on pre-existing works, but with enough originality to warrant their own copyright protection.
   * Examples include translations, adaptations, and compilations.
   Example:
   A filmmaker creates a movie based on a famous novel. The movie itself (a derivative work) can be copyrighted, but it won’t infringe on the copyright of the original novel.

• Key Points to Remember:
• Copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves.
• Originality is the key - a work needs to be original to be copyrighted.
• Derivative works can be copyrighted as long as they show sufficient creativity beyond the original work.
• Bonus Tip:
  Copyright protection arises automatically upon creation; no registration is required. However, registration offers certain advantages in legal disputes.

Question 17

VI. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293)

C. Copyrights

2. Non-Copyrightable Works – Sections 175-176

Answer 17

Not Everything Gets Copyright Protection: A Guide to Non-Copyrightable Works (RA 1844)

These sections of RA 1844 highlight certain ideas and creations that are not eligible for copyright protection in the Philippines. Remember “IP No Go” for these non-copyrightable categories:

1. Ideas, Procedures, etc. (Section 175.n):
   * Copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves.
   * You can’t copyright a business concept, a scientific theory, or a method of doing something (e.g., a new exercise routine).
   Example (Current Event):
   A fitness influencer creates a unique workout program. While the specific exercises and their sequence might not be copyrightable, the creative way they are presented in a video or manual might be.
2. News and Facts (Section 175.n):
   * Factual information, news events, and data are not copyrightable.
   Example:
   A news report on a recent election cannot be copyrighted, but the original way the report is written and presented might be.
3. Government Works (Section 176.1):
   * Works created by the Philippine government are not copyrightable.
   * However, permission might be needed from the government agency to use such works for commercial purposes.
   Example:
   A government agency publishes a handbook on disaster preparedness. The handbook itself isn’t copyrighted, but you might need permission to reprint and sell copies for profit.

• Key Points to Remember:
• Copyright protects creative expression, not ideas or facts.
• Government works are generally not copyrightable, but permission for commercial use might be required.
• Exceptions exist, such as copyright protection for compilations of government speeches by the author (Section 176.2).

Bonus Tip: This doesn’t mean government works can’t be protected. They might be subject to other forms of intellectual property rights, like trade secrets.

Question 18

VI. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293)

C. Copyrights

3. Rights Conferred by Copyright – Sections 177 and 193-199

Question 19

VI. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293)

C. Copyrights
4. Ownership of a Copyright – Section 178

Answer 19

Who Owns the Copyright? A Guide to Copyright Ownership (RA 1844)

These sections of RA 1844 clarify who owns the copyright in various creative works. Remember “O-M-G, I Own It!” to remember the key categories:

1. Original Works (Section 178.1):
   * The general rule - the author (creator) of an original literary or artistic work is the copyright owner.
   * This applies to writings, paintings, sculptures, musical compositions, etc.
   Example (Current Event):
   A singer-songwriter writes and performs a new song. They are the copyright owner of both the music and lyrics (assuming they are the original creator).
2. Joint Authorship (Section 178.2):
   * When two or more people create a work together, they are joint copyright owners.
   * Without an agreement, co-owners have equal rights to use and exploit the work.
   * If separable parts are created, each author might own the copyright in their specific contribution.
   Example:
   A team of writers collaborates on a screenplay. They are all joint copyright owners of the screenplay unless they have a written agreement stating otherwise.
3. Works Created During Employment (Section 178.3):
   * Works created by an employee as part of their regular job duties belong to the employer.
   * If the work is outside the employee’s regular duties (e.g., a personal project using company resources), the employee owns the copyright.
   * An agreement can change ownership regardless of the work type.
   Example:
   A graphic designer creates social media graphics for their company as part of their job. The copyright belongs to the company.
4. Commissioned Works (Section 178.4):
   * When someone commissions a work (pays to have it created), the person who pays generally owns the finished work (e.g., a painting).
   * However, the copyright ownership remains with the creator (artist) unless there’s a written agreement stating otherwise.
   Example:
   A company commissions a photographer to take product photos for their website. The company owns the photos themselves (to use on their website), but the copyright in the photographs belongs to the photographer (unless there’s a written agreement assigning copyright to the company).
5. Audiovisual Works (Section 178.5):
   * In movies and similar works, copyright is typically shared among several creators, including the producer, screenwriter, composer, director, and author of any adapted material.
   * The producer usually has the right to exhibit the work (show it to the public) but may not be able to license the music separately without permission from the composer.
   Example:
   In a film production, the copyright might be jointly owned by the director, who created the film, the screenwriter who wrote the story, and the composer who created the music.
6. Letters (Section 178.6):
   * The person who writes a letter generally owns the copyright to the content of the letter.
   * However, there might be limitations based on the Civil Code (e.g., privacy rights of the recipient).
   Example:
   A person writes a series of letters to a friend. The writer owns the copyright to the content of those letters.

Key Points to Remember:
* Originality is key - the creator usually owns the copyright.
* Joint authorship, employment situations, and commissioned works require special considerations for copyright ownership.
* Agreements can change ownership rights, so it’s important to have everything in writing.

Question 20

VI. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293)

C. Copyrights
5. Limitations on Copyright – Sections 184-185

Question 21

VI. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293)

C. Copyrights
6. Copyright Infringement – Section 216

Answer 21

Understanding Remedies for Copyright Infringement in the Philippines (RA 1844)

Copyright infringement happens when someone uses your copyrighted work without permission. RA 1844 (Section 216.1) gives copyright owners a toolbox of remedies to fight infringement. Here’s a breakdown for easy memorizing:

1. Stop the Infringement (Section 216.1.a):
   * Copyright owners can seek an injunction, a court order forcing the infringer to stop the infringing activity.
   * This could include preventing the sale of infringing goods or the unauthorized use of copyrighted material.
   Example:
   A clothing company is illegally using a popular artist’s design on their t-shirts. The artist can seek an injunction to stop the production and sale of these infringing shirts.
2. Get Compensated (Section 216.1.b):
   * Copyright owners can recover actual damages, including:
   
   • Legal costs incurred due to the infringement.
   • Profits made by the infringer from using the copyrighted work.
     * Alternatively, they can seek statutory damages, an amount determined by the court without needing to prove specific losses.
     Example:
     A musician discovers a website illegally distributing their music for download. They can sue for damages, including the profits earned by the website from selling the music without permission.
3. Impound the Evidence (Section 216.1.c):
   * Copyright owners can request the court to impound (seize and hold) evidence related to the infringement.
   * This could include infringing copies, sales records, and equipment used to create them.
   Example:
   A designer finds a store selling counterfeit handbags using their copyrighted logo. They can request the court to impound the fake handbags as evidence in the infringement case.
4. Destroy the Infringing Copies (Section 216.1.d):
   * Courts can order the destruction of infringing copies and materials used to make them.
   Example (Current Event):
   A company is caught manufacturing and selling pirated copies of a popular video game. The court might order the destruction of the counterfeit games and the equipment used to produce them.
5. Additional Remedies (Section 216.1.e):
   * In some cases, copyright owners may be awarded moral damages (compensation for emotional distress) and exemplary damages (punitive damages to deter future infringement).

Remember: Copyright infringement can be costly for both sides. It’s important to respect copyright laws and seek permission before using someone else’s work.

Question 22

Challenging MCQs on Patentable vs. Non-Pentable Inventions (using current events)

Scenario 1: Algorithmic Creativity

A company develops an AI that can generate new and original musical pieces in various styles. The company seeks a patent on the AI itself and the music it creates.

Question 1:

Is the AI and the music it creates likely to be patentable?

a) Both the AI and the music are patentable inventions.
b) Only the AI is patentable, not the music it creates.
c) Neither the AI nor the music is patentable.
d) It depends on the specific level of creativity exhibited by the AI.

Answer 22

Answer: (b) Only the AI is patentable, not the music it creates.

Legal Reasoning:

• The AI itself could be considered a patentable invention if it meets the criteria of novelty, inventive step, and industrial application. It’s a technical solution (applying AI to music creation) with potential industrial use (music production).
• However, music itself is an abstract concept and not patentable under Section 22.1 (discoveries, scientific theories). Even if created by AI, the music isn’t a new product using new reactants (components).

Scenario 2: Wearable Health Monitor

A company invents a comfortable smartwatch that continuously monitors blood sugar levels using a non-invasive method. This innovation could help diabetics manage their condition more effectively.

Question 23

Question 2:

The wearable health monitor is likely to be considered:

a) A non-patentable invention because it relates to healthcare.
b) A patentable invention due to its medical application.
c) Patentable only if it can diagnose diabetes, not just monitor blood sugar.
d) It depends on whether the non-invasive method is truly novel.

Answer 23

Answer: (d) It depends on whether the non-invasive method is truly novel.

• The wearable health monitor itself has the potential to be patentable if it meets the standard criteria (novelty, inventive step, industrial application).
• Section 22.3 excludes methods of treatment from patent protection, but the monitor is a device, not a treatment method.
• The key factor here is the non-invasive method for blood sugar monitoring. If this method is entirely new and non-obvious (inventive step), it strengthens the case for patentability.

Scenario 3: Sustainable Packaging

A startup invents a new type of food packaging made from rapidly renewable plant materials that biodegrade quickly and completely. This innovation could significantly reduce plastic waste.

Question 24

Question 3:

The sustainable packaging is likely to be considered:

a) A non-patentable invention because it’s an environmentally friendly product.
b) A patentable invention if the plant materials are themselves novel discoveries.
c) Patentable only if the packaging design is unique and aesthetically pleasing.
d) It depends on whether the packaging offers a significant improvement over existing solutions.

Answer 24

Answer: (d) It depends on whether the packaging offers a significant improvement over existing solutions.

• This scenario hinges on the technical aspects of the packaging. If the plant materials used are well-known, their discovery wouldn’t be patentable (Section 22.1).
• The key factor is whether the combination of these materials and the design of the packaging create a new product with an inventive step that offers a substantial advantage over existing biodegradable packaging options (industrial application).

Question 25

Challenging MCQs on Patent Ownership (RA 165a) with Current Events Leaning

Scenario: A team of researchers at a private biotech company, funded in part by a government grant, discovers a new gene therapy for a rare genetic disease. The research team included two lead scientists (Dr. Reyes and Dr. Santos) and a research assistant (Ms. Cruz) who made significant contributions. There is no specific agreement regarding patent ownership within the company’s employment contracts.

Question 1:

Who is most likely to be considered the owner of the patent for the gene therapy?

a) The private biotech company
b) Dr. Reyes and Dr. Santos jointly
c) The government agency that provided the grant funding
d) All of the above (company, inventors, and government)

.

Answer 25

Answer: (b) Dr. Reyes and Dr. Santos jointly

Legal Reasoning:

• Based on Section 28 (default ownership), Dr. Reyes and Dr. Santos, as the lead scientists who presumably made the key inventive contributions, would be considered the inventors.
• Since they likely worked together on the project, they would likely co-own the patent rights unless there was a specific agreement stating otherwise.
• Ms. Cruz’s contribution as a research assistant might not qualify for co-inventorship if her work fell within the scope of her regular duties

Question 26

Question 2:

The government agency that provided funding for the research argues they deserve some ownership rights in the patent. Do they have a valid claim?

a) Yes, because they partially funded the research.
b) No, unless they had a specific agreement with the company regarding ownership.
c) It depends on the specific terms and conditions of the government grant.
d) Only if the government agency directly participated in the invention process.

Answer 26

Answer: (c) It depends on the specific terms and conditions of the government grant.

• Section 30 doesn’t address government funding of research projects.
• While funding doesn’t automatically grant ownership (b), some government grants might have clauses outlining specific rights or royalties for inventions developed using their funding (c).
• Examining the specific grant agreement is crucial to determine if the government has any valid claim to co-ownership (d).

Question 27

Challenging MCQs on Patent Rights and Limitations (RA 165a)

Scenario: A pharmaceutical company invents a revolutionary new drug for treating a rare genetic disease. They are granted a patent for the drug’s unique formula and production process.

Question 1:

A small, independent pharmacy starts importing the patented drug from a country where it is legal to manufacture and sell generic versions. Can the patent owner sue the pharmacy for infringement?

a) Yes, because importing a patented product is always infringement.
b) No, because the pharmacy is a small business and not a major competitor.
c) Yes, if the patent owner did not give permission for import.
d) It depends on the specific terms of international trade agreements.

Answer 27

Answer: (c) Yes, if the patent owner did not give permission for import.

Legal Reasoning:

• Section 71 grants patent owners exclusive rights, including controlling the import of their patented product (unless exhaustion of rights applies).
• In this scenario, the drug is still under patent protection, and the pharmaceutical company likely hasn’t authorized imports.
• While the pharmacy’s size might be relevant in a lawsuit regarding damages, it doesn’t negate infringement (b).
• International trade agreements might influence aspects of patent enforcement (d), but they generally uphold patent rights.

Question 27

Question 2:

A group of researchers at a university is conducting clinical trials on a potential new treatment for the same genetic disease. They plan to use a small amount of the patented drug as a reference point in their research. Would this use infringe on the patent owner’s rights?

a) Yes, because any use of the patented drug requires permission.
b) No, because the research is for a public health benefit.
c) It depends on whether the research is commercially funded.
d) Yes, unless the researchers are working directly with the patent owner.

Answer 27

Answer: (d) Yes, unless the researchers are working directly with the patent owner (or have permission).

Legal Reasoning:

• Section 72.3 allows for limited “experimental use” of patented inventions for research purposes.
• However, the key question is whether this specific use is considered “limited” and doesn’t significantly prejudice the patent owner’s economic interests (Section 72.2).
• While the research has a positive goal (b), using a patented drug without permission could still be considered infringement (d) unless they have authorization from the patent owner.

Question 28

Challenging MCQs on Marks, Collective Marks, and Trade Names (RA 166a)

Scenario: A popular social media platform is considering new features:

• A verification badge system for creators with a large following.
• A program where universities can partner with the platform to offer accredited online courses.
• A marketplace where users can buy and sell handmade crafts directly from independent artists.

Question 1:

The verification badge is designed by a graphic artist and has a unique visual style. Can the platform register the badge as a trademark?

a) Yes, verification badges inherently distinguish the goods or services of a business.
b) No, because verification badges are functional and not inherently distinctive.
c) Yes, if the platform can demonstrate the badge has acquired distinctiveness in the market.
d) It depends on whether the verification badge is used for creators or for universities.

Answer 28

Answer: (c) Yes, if the platform can demonstrate the badge has acquired distinctiveness in the market.

Legal Reasoning:

• While marks typically distinguish goods or services (not users), verification badges could potentially function as a source identifier for content creators on the platform (similar to a trademark).
• However, the badge’s design itself might be considered functional (indicating verification status) and not inherently distinctive (b).
• The key would be to prove that the badge design, through use, has acquired distinctiveness in the market, signifying verification specifically from this platform (c).

Question 29

Question 2:

The platform wants to create a symbol identifying online courses offered in partnership with universities. This symbol would likely be considered a:

a) Trademark
b) Collective Mark
c) Trade Name
d) It depends on whether the courses are accredited.

Answer 29

Answer: (b) Collective Mark

Legal Reasoning:

• A collective mark identifies a group of entities sharing a common characteristic (Section 121.2).
• In this scenario, the symbol would identify universities that partnered with the platform for online courses, signifying a shared affiliation (b).
• Trademarks distinguish the goods or services of a single source (a), and trade names identify the business itself (c). Neither applies here.

Question 30

Question 3:

Independent artists on the new marketplace want to use their shop names to identify their storefronts. These shop names would likely be considered:

a) Trademarks
b) Collective Marks
c) Trade Names
d) Service Marks

Answer 30

Answer: (c) Trade Names

Legal Reasoning:

• Trade names identify and distinguish the business itself (Section 121.3).
• In this case, the shop names would identify the individual artist’s online store within the larger marketplace (c).
• While trademarks can be used for businesses (a), they typically focus on identifying specific goods or services offered, not the business itself.
• Collective marks identify a group (b), and service marks distinguish services, not the business entity providing them (d).

Question 31

Challenging MCQs on Copyright Infringement Remedies (RA 1844)

Scenario: A local artist creates a unique mural on a building wall. Without permission, a clothing company photographs the mural and uses the image on a new line of t-shirts. The artist believes their copyright has been infringed.

Question 1:

The artist wants to prevent the clothing company from selling the t-shirts. Which remedy under RA 1844 would be most appropriate for this goal?

a) Sue for actual damages and lost profits.
b) Request the impoundment of the infringing t-shirts.
c) Seek a statutory damage award.
d) File for an injunction.

Answer 31

Answer: (d) File for an injunction.

Legal Reasoning:

• An injunction (Section 216.1.a) is a court order restraining the infringing activity.
• In this case, the artist wants to stop the clothing company from selling the t-shirts.
• While damages (a) or impoundment (b) might be sought later, the immediate goal is to halt the ongoing infringement (d).
• Statutory damages (c) are awarded after infringement is proven, not to prevent it.

Question 32

Question 2:

The artist discovers the clothing company has already sold a significant number of infringing t-shirts. In addition to an injunction, what remedy under RA 1844 could help the artist recover compensation for the infringement?

a) Sue for the destruction of all infringing t-shirts.
b) Request the return of the profits made from the t-shirt sales.
c) Both (a) and (b)
d) Neither (a) nor (b)

Answer 32

Answer: (b) Request the return of the profits made from the t-shirt sales.

Legal Reasoning:

• Section 216.1.b allows copyright owners to recover actual damages, including profits made by the infringer.
• In this scenario, the artist can sue to recover the profits the clothing company earned by selling the infringing t-shirts (b).
• While the court might order the destruction of remaining infringing copies (a), this wouldn’t necessarily compensate the artist for the sales that already occurred.
• Option (d) is incorrect because both destruction and recovery of profits are potential remedies.

Question 33

Challenging MCQs on Non-Copyrightable Works (RA 1844)

Scenario: A government department releases a public service announcement (PSA) about fire safety. The PSA contains a catchy jingle and memorable mascots designed to raise awareness.

Question 1:

A private company wants to use the jingle from the fire safety PSA in a new advertisement for their fire alarm systems. Can the government department claim copyright infringement?

a) Yes, because the jingle is an original creative work.
b) No, because government works are not copyrightable under RA 1844.
c) It depends on whether the jingle was registered with the government.
d) The government can only sue if the company uses the mascots as well.

Answer 33

Answer: (b) No, because government works are not copyrightable under RA 1844.

Legal Reasoning:

• Section 176.1 of RA 1844 states that government works are not subject to copyright protection (IP No Go!).
• Even though the jingle might be original and creative, it was created by a government agency (b).
• While the mascots might be considered artistic works and potentially copyrightable, copyright protection wouldn’t extend to the jingle itself.

Question 34

Question 2:

The same private company creates a mobile app that incorporates educational information from the government’s fire safety PSA. Can the government department prevent the company from using this information in their app?

a) Yes, because the government retains ownership of the information.
b) No, because facts and information cannot be copyrighted.
c) It depends on how much information is used from the PSA.
d) The government can only object if the app competes with a planned government app.

Answer 34

Answer: (b) No, because facts and information cannot be copyrighted.

Legal Reasoning:

• Section 175.n of RA 1844 excludes news and other factual information from copyright protection (another “IP No Go”).
• The fire safety information in the PSA, regardless of how presented, is considered factual data (b).
• The company can use this information in their app, but they can’t copy the creative expression of the PSA itself, such as the jingle or mascots.

Question 35

Challenging MCQs on Copyright Ownership (RA 1844)

Scenario 1: A social media influencer hires a freelance graphic designer to create a custom logo for their brand. The influencer pays the designer a one-time fee for the logo and there is no written agreement regarding copyright ownership.

Question 1:

Who owns the copyright to the custom logo?

a) The social media influencer because they commissioned the work.
b) The freelance graphic designer who created the logo.
c) Both the influencer and the designer have joint ownership.
d) It depends on how the logo is used by the influencer.

Answer 35

Answer: (b) The freelance graphic designer who created the logo.

Legal Reasoning:

• Section 178.4 of RA 1844 applies to commissioned works.
• While the influencer paid for the logo (commissioned the work), the copyright ownership remains with the creator (the designer) unless there’s a written agreement stating otherwise (which there isn’t in this scenario).

Scenario 2:

A popular musician writes a song and performs it live with their band. The band members contribute to the arrangement and backing music for the song during live performances.

Question 36

Question 2:

Who owns the copyright to the song?

a) The musician who wrote the song.
b) The entire band as joint copyright owners.
c) It depends on whether the band members contributed to the songwriting.
d) The copyright is automatically split between the musician and the band.

Answer 36

Answer: (a) The musician who wrote the song.

Legal Reasoning:

• Section 178.1 of RA 1844 establishes that the author of an original work owns the copyright.
• Here, the musician wrote the song, making them the original creator.
• While the band members’ contributions during live performances might be considered derivative works, they wouldn’t affect the copyright ownership of the original song composition itself (Section 178.2).

Question 37

Challenging MCQs on Non-Registrable Trademarks (RA 1844)

Scenario 1: A new mobile app allows users to share funny memes and GIFs. The app developer wants to register the trademark “LOLcat Central” for their app.

Question 1:

Can the app developer successfully register “LOLcat Central” as a trademark for their app?

a) Yes, “LOLcat” is a creative term not commonly used for meme apps.
b) No, “LOLcat” is likely considered a generic term for memes and humor.
c) The registrability depends on whether there are similar existing trademarks.
d) The answer depends on the design of the app’s logo.

Answer 37

Answer: (b) No, “LOLcat” is likely considered a generic term for memes and humor.

Legal Reasoning:

• Section 123.1(h) of RA 1844 restricts trademarks from being generic terms.
• “LOLcat” is a common internet term associated with funny cat pictures and memes.
• Even though “Central” might be distinctive, the core element “LOLcat” is likely considered generic for the type of app (funny content sharing).

Question 38

Scenario 2: A popular athlete creates a clothing line featuring their jersey number and a silhouette of their signature sports pose.

Question 2:

Can the athlete register their jersey number and silhouette as a trademark for their clothing line?

a) Yes, the combination of number and silhouette is a unique design.
b) No, jersey numbers are generally not registrable as trademarks for clothing.
c) The registrability depends on whether other athletes use similar silhouettes.
d) The answer depends on how famous the athlete is.

Answer 38

Answer: (b) No, jersey numbers are generally not registrable as trademarks for clothing.

Legal Reasoning:

• Section 123.1(j) of RA 1844 restricts trademarks from solely indicating characteristics of the goods.
• In this case, the jersey number directly identifies the athlete’s association with a particular sport, making it a functional indicator rather than a source identifier for the clothing line.
• The silhouette might be considered for trademark protection if it’s highly unique and distinctive (not just a generic sports pose), but the jersey number itself would likely be unregistrable.