KSLU Solved Question Papers
Intellectual Property Rights I
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 9
2020 Nov Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 9 Intellectual Property Rights I 2020 Nov Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2020 Nov examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2020 Nov examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2020 Nov examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 13 questions answered
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q1Discuss the economic and labour justification for protection of Intellectual Property Rights.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: why IP needs a justification (it restricts competition); Part A, the economic justification: knowledge as a public good, free riders and under-production, the incentive, the disclosure bargain (Biswanath Prasad), markets for technology and licensing, trade marks and search costs; the costs (monopoly price, deadweight loss, thickets) and how the law balances them (TRIPS Articles 7 and 8; Patents Act sections 83, 84, 3(d); Novartis; Bayer); Part B, the labour justification: Locke's theory and its provisos; how far the law rewards labour (sweat of the brow rejected in Feist; skill and judgment in Eastern Book Company; inventive step, not effort, in patents); its strengths and weaknesses; a comparison table; assessment.
Why a justification is needed
Ordinarily anyone may make and sell anything. Intellectual property (IP) reverses that: it lets one person stop others from copying an invention, a book or a brand. Since the law restricts competition and access, it must explain why. Two of the main explanations are the economic justification and the labour justification.
Part A: The economic justification
1. Knowledge is a public good
Economists call a thing a public good when it has two features. It is non-rival: one person's use leaves as much for others. It is non-excludable: once disclosed, it is hard to stop others using it. A new manufacturing method or a song has both features. A thousand factories can use the same method at once, and anyone can copy it once they see it.
2. Free riders and under-production
A free rider enjoys a benefit without paying for it. A copier who does not spend on research can sell at a lower price than the inventor, who must recover research costs. Expecting this, firms and creators invest less than society would want. Economists call this under-production of knowledge.
3. The incentive
IP corrects the problem by giving the creator an exclusive right for a limited time. He can then charge enough to recover his investment and earn a profit. This expected reward is the incentive to invent and create.
4. The disclosure bargain
Without patents, inventors would keep valuable methods secret. A patent buys disclosure: the inventor must describe the invention fully, and when the term ends anyone may use it.
In Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries, (1979) 2 SCC 511, a patent for holding utensils on a lathe was challenged. The Supreme Court revoked it as a mere workshop improvement. It explained that patent law exists to encourage scientific research and industrial progress. The price of the monopoly is disclosure, after which the invention passes into the public domain. The economic bargain is thus part of Indian law.
5. Markets for technology
A patent or copyright is property. It can be licensed, sold or used as security. This lets an inventor who cannot manufacture license someone who can, and lets technology move across firms and countries.
6. Trade marks: lower search costs
A trade mark serves a different economic purpose. Buyers cannot test the quality of many goods before buying them. A known mark tells them cheaply where the goods come from. Sellers keep quality up to protect the mark's reputation. So marks reduce buyers' search costs and reward consistent quality.
7. The costs, and how the law balances them
- Monopoly price. While the right lasts, the owner can charge well above the cost of making copies.
- Deadweight loss. Some people who would buy at a competitive price go without. Nobody gains from those lost sales.
- Thickets and transaction costs. Many overlapping rights over one product can make new entry costly.
The law sets limits so that the benefit exceeds the cost.
- TRIPS Article 7 says protection should promote innovation and the transfer of technology, "in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations". Article 8 allows measures to protect public health and to prevent abuse.
- Patents Act, 1970, section 83 says patents are granted to encourage inventions and their working in India, and not merely to enable importation. Clause (c) repeats Article 7.
- Limited terms, disclosure, compulsory licences (section 84) and exclusions (section 3) keep the monopoly in check.
Exclusions. In Novartis AG v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 1, Novartis sought a patent for the beta crystalline form of its cancer drug imatinib. The Supreme Court refused it under section 3(d), because enhanced therapeutic efficacy was not shown. A new form of a known medicine does not earn a fresh monopoly without a real benefit to patients.
Compulsory licences. In Bayer Corporation v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 963, Bayer's cancer drug sorafenib cost about Rs 2,80,000 a month. Natco obtained a compulsory licence and sold it at about Rs 8,800. The Bombay High Court upheld the licence, judging affordability from the public's standpoint. Where the cost of the monopoly becomes too high, the law reduces it.
Part B: The labour justification
Locke's theory
The English philosopher John Locke argued that every person owns his own labour. When he mixes his labour with something that nobody owns, he makes it his property. Applied to IP, one who labours to produce an invention, a book or a design deserves to own the result.
Locke added two provisos. "Enough and as good" must be left in common for others. And nobody may take more than he can use without waste. For IP, these provisos support limits: knowledge in the public domain must stay free, and rights should not block others' use of common ideas.
How far the law rewards labour
Copyright: labour alone is not enough. Some older English decisions protected compilations because of the labour spent, the so-called "sweat of the brow" approach.
In Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 18 USPQ 2d 1275 (1991), Rural published a telephone directory listing subscribers alphabetically. Feist copied the listings into its own area directory. The United States Supreme Court held that originality, meaning independent creation with at least a minimal degree of creativity, is essential. Facts are not original, so the listings were unprotected despite the labour spent collecting them.
India chose a middle path. In Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, AIR 2008 SC 809, the publisher of Supreme Court Cases sued over CD-ROMs copying its edited judgments. The Supreme Court rejected both the pure sweat of the brow test and the creativity test alone. It adopted a test of skill and judgment: labour counts only with skill and judgment that is more than trivial. The raw judgments were free, but the editor's paragraph numbering, cross-references and notes were protected.
Patents: labour is irrelevant. A patent rewards an inventive step, not effort. An obvious result is refused however many years it took, while a brilliant idea that came quickly may be patented. Biswanath Prasad shows this: the method was revoked as a workshop improvement.
Strengths and weaknesses
- Strength. It matches the moral sense that people deserve the fruits of their work. It explains why copiers are seen as unfair.
- Weakness. The law does not in fact measure labour: it rewards originality and inventiveness.
- Weakness. Every creation builds on earlier knowledge, so the creator's labour is mixed with what others made.
- Weakness. It does not explain limited terms, since labour gives no reason for a right to end.
The two compared
| Economic justification | Labour justification | |
|---|---|---|
| Core idea | A limited right fixes under-production | A person owns what his labour produces |
| Thinkers and sources | Utilitarian economics; TRIPS Article 7 | John Locke |
| Explains | Limited terms, exceptions, compulsory licences | Moral sense of desert; dislike of copying |
| Indian law | Patents Act ss.83, 84, 3(d) (Novartis, Bayer) | Skill and judgment test (Eastern Book Company) |
| Weakness | Incentive effect hard to measure | Law rewards originality, not effort (Feist) |
Assessment
Indian IP law rests mainly on the economic justification. Its rights are limited in time and scope, and yield to public need. The labour idea survives in a refined form: copyright protects skill and judgment, not mere effort.
Conclusion. The economic justification treats knowledge as a public good that markets under-produce because of free riders. IP gives a limited exclusive right as an incentive, in exchange for disclosure (Biswanath Prasad). It also cuts buyers' search costs through marks. Its costs are checked by TRIPS Articles 7 and 8 and by sections 83, 84 and 3(d) (Novartis, Bayer). The labour justification, from Locke, says creators deserve the fruit of their work. But the law rewards skill and judgment (Eastern Book Company) and inventiveness, not mere effort (Feist).
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 9 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.