Take this example.
On a more elaborative context, aren’t improvements or modifications made on the main invention itself eligible for new invention? We aren’t taking an analogy per se of associated nor of the setories marks, but, the term being same as of the main invention, and, been filed at the time or after the main invention filed.
I coined the definition of Patents long back as -> Discovery++; that means, one step ahead of discovering anything; as there is no such thing called absolute invention. Had that been the case, then the Pharmaceutical Companies, wouldn’t have got so many Patents in their names (an example of that is vide Markush Claim).
And what defines an invention as per the definition? A product or process involving an inventive step! Thus, doesn’t modification and improvements even over the main invention should be termed as the Invention itself? Hence, its term won’t be depending on the main invention, nor the need to file for a separate application, to convert Addition into Main Invention!Isn’t there a legal complexity at three junctures:
1. In case of the main invention is revoked, then, another petition to declare the addition as independent;
2. The addition is not equivalent to the main invention, rather, and as the fees not being paid, thus existing under the limbo of the legality of main invention;
3. The term is restricted to the main, which shouldn’t have been the case either.
Thus, considering the above submissions, and the definitions of the Patent itself, as there’s no such thing as an absolute invention, rather, derivative of all the existing products; including pharmaceutical products, in which steroidical compounds been derived from roots, stems, leaves, barks etc., an then artificially been produced in the Labs, claiming to be an inventive product; isn’t this also similar to main invention + patent of addition, yet, been considered as the main invention.
Hence, Patent of Addition be given as the independent invention status!😊
© Pranav Chaturvedi
No comments:
Post a Comment