VIVA SEM 1 CIA

Question 1

What should be detailed (enlist the points) out in the letter sent by R to G?

Answer 1

1. Statement of R’s (through L) Patent Ownership of Patent: including the patent number (No. 1234567) and the title of the invention (“Anion receptor antagonist for the treatment of chronic heart attack”).
2. Notice to G of Patent Infringement: manufacturing the patented compound without a license
3. RTI Discovery: A reference to the information obtained via the RTI application, i.e. G applied for a manufacturing license for the same compound and listed it on their website.
4. Request for Cease and Desist: G ceases all manufacturing and sales activities related to the patented compound immediately.
5. Request for Formal Explanation from G Regarding Infringement and Lack of Response to Prior Communications
6. Warning of Possible Legal Action for Infringement: if G does not respond or comply.

Question 2

Since no response was provided, what steps would you ask R to take against G?

Answer 2

1. File a Lawsuit for Patent Infringement: involves proving that G’s activities violate the patent granted to L.
2. Seek an Injunction to prevent G from continuing manufacturing until matter is resolved
3. Seek Damages: R can claim monetary compensation for any losses caused by G’s infringement, including any profits G has made from selling the patented compound.
4. Explore Licensing Negotiations (royalty system): If R prefers a non-litigious resolution
5. Notify Regulatory Authorities of G’s Manufacture and Possible Sale of infringing product

Question 3

If the two individuals King and Kong are untraceable, what would be your advice?

Answer 3

1. Continue Asserting Ownership: As per the Standing Rules of Employment, L owns the IP, so the inability to locate King and Kong should not affect R’s rights over the patent. L can continue asserting its ownership as the employer of the inventors.
2. Affidavit or Declaration (by R or L) of efforts made to locate K and K, and confirmation that L retains ownership of patent as per employment contract:
3. Engage in Legal Proceedings Without Inventor Testimony, arguing that company’s ownership of patent is sufficient as per employment contract and patent’s approval

Question 4

Does G have any right to file a patent on the invention?

Answer 4

NO

1. Invention is part of the Prior Art since patent has already been granted to L
2. Lack of novelty and inventive step since invention has already been disclosed and patented by L/R
3. L, through inventors King and Kong, hold rights to the invention, so G cannot claim ownership or file a patent for something it does not own

Question 5

Can any remedy be sought before the “grant of a patent”?

Answer 5

Yes, through the pre-grant opposition mechanism

1. Pre-Grant Opposition filed by G to challenge the patent application on grounds such as lack of novelty, inventive step, or insufficient disclosure.
2. Raise objections during Examination Process of patent application, to which applicant is required to respond
3. Public Inspection of application once published after 18 months of filing, allowing third party challenges before granting

Question 6

What do you suggest as the grounds for filing the post-grant opposition?

Answer 6

ALL RELATED TO FAILING TO MEET CRITERIA FOR PATENT

1. Lack of Inventive Step and non-obviousness: the oxytocin derivatives mentioned in the patent were obvious to a person skilled in the art
2. Prior Art and Lack of Novelty: G could present evidence (published work, patents, or research) that the patented compound was already known or disclosed before the filing date of the patent
3. Insufficient Disclosure: patent doesn’t provide enough detail for a person skilled in the art to replicate the invention

Question 7

Draft a single independent claim and a single dependent claim based on the given abstract.

Answer 7

Independent Claim:

I claim a method of treating patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, with a P2 inhibitor such as atorlip, that can reduce the risk of a composite outcome of worsening heart failure, including hospitalisation for the same or urgent heart failure visits, or death from cardiovascular causes

Dependent Claim:

The method of claim 1, wherein the patient may or may not have Type 2 retinoblastoma and administering the P2 inhibitor also improves the patient’s heart failure symptoms, health status, and quality of life