Mumbai University Solved Question Papers
Intellectual Property Laws
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
BLS LLB 5 Years · Sem 10
2018-19 Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
BLS LLB 5 Years Sem 10 Intellectual Property Laws 2018-19 Question Paper with Solutions
Get access to whole semester resourcesSemester Pass
MU law student group
Free to join
First published on munotes.in on 24 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 the University of Mumbai. It is not affiliated with the University of Mumbai, 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 the University of Mumbai at the 2018-19 examination.
The answers in this volume state the law as it stands today, not as it stood when the paper was set. The Intellectual Property Appellate Board was abolished on 4 April 2021 by the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, so patent revocation petitions and appeals from the Controller and the Registrar now lie to the High Court, and the Copyright Board's work, including tariff appeals, lies with the Commercial Court. Since 1 August 2024 the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 has turned several trade mark and patent offences into penalties imposed by an adjudicating officer, and the 2026 Act omitted section 119 of the Patents Act from 1 June 2026. Medicines and chemicals have had product patents only since 1 January 2005, and every patent alive on 20 May 2003 runs twenty years from filing. The Supreme Court reversed the Madras ruling in Khoday Distilleries on 27 May 2008. Copyright cases decided before 2012 cite section 52 by its old letters.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as the University of Mumbai set it at the 2018-19 examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2018-19 examination, reproduced as the University of Mumbai set them, in the order it set them. Nothing has been reworded, added or left out. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 25 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.
Q.1
Q.1: Answer in two to three sentences each
20 Marks - 2 marks each
(a)Explain inventive step?[2]
Answer
Definition. Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970 says "inventive step" means "a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art".
Its parts.
- Technical advance or economic significance. The invention must take the field forward, or have real economic value, or both.
- Compared with existing knowledge. The comparison is with the prior art, everything already known before the priority date.
- Not obvious. The decisive test. Would a person skilled in that field, knowing the prior art, have arrived at the invention without inventive effort? If yes, there is no inventive step.
Why it matters. An invention must be new, inventive and capable of industrial application (section 2(1)(j)). Novelty alone is not enough. A small, obvious change to a known thing is new but not inventive. Lack of inventive step is a ground of opposition (section 25(1)(e)) and of revocation (section 64(1)(f)).
Case. In Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries, (1979) 2 SCC 511, a firm had patented a way of holding utensils on a lathe. The Supreme Court revoked it. An improvement on what is known must be more than a "workshop improvement". It must itself show an inventive step and produce a new result, or a better or cheaper article.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the B.L.S. LL.B. 5 Years Semester 10 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.
Notes + Solved papers: ₹798 Already bought it? Sign in
Or solved papers only: ₹499
Or notes only: ₹499
The question paper itself stays free, and so does the syllabus.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.