The Pros And Cons Of Patent

1453 Words 6 Pages
Register to read the introduction… S/he can file an application for UK patent issued under the terms of the PA 1977. This application must be filed to the UK Intellectual Property Office. If successful, the inventor will be granted a patent effective throughout the United Kingdom. Alternatively, the inventor can file application for a European patent under the terms of the European Patent Convention 1973. This application may normally be filed with either the UK Intellectual Property Office or the European Patent Office in Munich. If filed with the former, it will be forward to the latter for processing. If the application is successful, the inventor will be granted, not a single patent effective throughout the Contracting Parties of the Convention, but rather a bundle of national patents, each taking effect as the particular Contracting Party designed his/her patent. Finally, the inventor can file an application to either the UK Intellectual Property Office, or the European Patent Office or the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organisation under the terms of the Patent Cooperation Treaty 1970. An international application does not lead to the grant of a patent; rather it establishes the formal validity of, and a priority date, for the …show more content…
For example, in United Wire Ltd v Screen Repair (Scotland) Ltd, “making” sifting screen for use in vibratory filtering machines was distinguished from their repair. In The Upjohn Company v T Kerfoot & Co Ltd, “use” was said to mean “commercial use” such that using data about a patented pharmaceutical to file for a product licence did not entail its “use”. In Smith, Klime and French Laboratories Ltd v R D Harbottle (Merchantile) Ltd, an airline holding infringing articles in transit in its airport warehouse was held not to be “keeping” the product, whilst in Macdonald v Graham, a businessman who had kept infringing products “in stock for the purpose of his business in order to make use of them as and when it would be beneficial to do so” was “keeping” them in the sense required by the PA 1977. Similarly, in Sabaf SpA v MFI Furniture Centres Ltd, the court treated the issue of which party had “imported” infringing goods as a matter of substance and not determined by reference to the issue of which party had arranged for the transport of the

Related Documents