LLM Group 3 Law of Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law of Patents Solved Question Papers with Answers 2015 to 2026 - Mumbai University | munotes

Eight files in this folder hold NINE distinct printed papers and fifty seven questions, and all fifty seven are answered here. The 2015 scan carries two complete hundred mark papers, not a paper and its Marathi translation, and so does the 2018 scan; and one scan has been uploaded twice under two academic years, the 2018 and 2019 files being byte for byte the same paper, so the same twelve answers are served at both addresses. That is how sixty nine answers come to stand against fifty seven questions.

NOT ONE question stem in this folder is repeated on another paper. What does repeat is the short note: six options are printed word for word on more than one paper, among them the modes of revocation and surrender, the terms and conditions of compulsory licences, appeals to the Appellate Board and the patent specification, and each of those carries the identical answer here. Preparing from last year's paper in this subject means preparing the topics, not the questions.

The shape of the paper has moved twice. The first 2015 paper sets FIVE questions, of which the first is compulsory. The second 2015 paper and both 2016 and 2018 papers set SIX. From 2023 onwards the count settles at SEVEN, with the last question always a set of short notes. Every paper is three hours, a hundred marks and any four questions, so a question is worth twenty five, and it is worth knowing that although three of the nine papers print the rubric that figures to the right indicate full marks, NOT ONE paper in this folder actually prints a figure against a question.

What recurs is unusually predictable, and the counts are worth knowing before you choose what to revise. PATENTABILITY, that is what an invention is and which inventions are and are not patentable, is set on ALL NINE papers. The specification and its contents are set on eight. The rights and obligations of the patentee are set on seven, and so is revocation or surrender. The international instruments, that is the Paris Convention, the Patent Cooperation Treaty, TRIPS and the Budapest Treaty, are set on six. Infringement, compulsory licensing and the procedure for obtaining a patent are each set on five.

The thinner topics are where papers are won, because most candidates have not read them. Government use and acquisition, evergreening, the powers of the Controller and the Appellate Board are each set on four papers. Assignment and licensing, offences and penalties, the patent of addition and opposition proceedings are each on three. And four topics appear exactly once in the whole folder: the true and first inventor, the patenting of traditional knowledge, secrecy directions for inventions relevant to defence, and the qualifications and rights of a patent agent. All four are answered in full here.

Three questions in this folder cannot be answered from their own words, and the answers say so before answering what the examiner meant. One asks for the crucial features of the Patent amendment Act of 2016, and THERE IS NO SUCH ACT: the last amending Act is the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, and what 2016 produced was a set of Rules. Four questions across three papers ask about appeals to the Appellate Board or about Appellate Tribunal proceedings, and that Board was abolished in 2021. Three papers ask for the offences and penalties WITH DECIDED CASES, and there are almost none, because infringement of a patent is not a criminal offence in India at all.

Every paper in the folder tells the candidate to cite case law, and the modern ones say so in terms. The answers are accordingly built on the authorities this subject actually turns on, among them Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries on the inventive step and on disclosure as the price of the monopoly, Novartis AG v. Union of India on section 3(d) and therapeutic efficacy, Bayer Corporation v. Union of India on India's only compulsory licence, Raj Prakash v. Mangat Ram Chowdhry on the pith and marrow test for infringement, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v. Cipla Ltd and Merck Sharp and Dohme Corporation v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals on when an injunction will and will not follow, and Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd on why patentability cannot be decided summarily.

These are model answers prepared by munotes. They are a study aid and not official University answer keys, which the University of Mumbai does not publish.