Mumbai University Solved Question Papers
Law of Patents
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
LLM · Group 3 Law of Intellectual Property and Information Technology
2018 Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
Mumbai University Solved Question Papers
Law of Patents
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
LLM · Group 3 Law of Intellectual Property and Information Technology
2018 Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
First published on munotes.in on 13 September 2026.
This edition revised 14 September 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 examination.
The law in these answers is stated as at September 2026, and four things date every textbook on this subject. THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD NO LONGER EXISTS: the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 omitted sections 116, 117, 117B, 117C and 117D of the Patents Act and substituted HIGH COURT for Appellate Board in section 117A, so appeals from the Controller and revocation petitions under section 64 now lie to the High Court, which is why the Delhi High Court framed its Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules in 2022. THE PENAL CHAPTER HAS BEEN CUT DOWN TWICE: the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 took effect for this Act on 1 August 2024 and turned sections 120, 122(1), 122(2) and 123 into PENALTIES imposed by an adjudicating officer under a new section 124A with an appeal under section 124B, omitting section 121 altogether; and the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026, passed on 2 April 2026, took effect for this Act on 1 JUNE 2026, OMITTING SECTION 119 on falsification of the register in its entirety and adding a proviso to section 118 which, in the case of a contravention of section 39 only, disapplies it where in the opinion of the Central Government the invention was not relevant for defence purpose or atomic energy, so that section 118 is now the ONLY substantive criminal offence left in the Patents Act. THERE IS NO PATENT AMENDMENT ACT OF 2016, although one paper in this folder asks for its crucial features: the last amending Act is the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, and 2016 produced the Patents (Amendment) Rules, which introduced expedited examination and the startup category. AND THE RULES HAVE MOVED AGAIN: the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2024, in force 15 March 2024, cut the time for requesting examination from forty eight months to thirty one, made the Form 27 statement of working triennial instead of annual, and codified the divisional application practice settled by the Division Bench in Syngenta Limited v. Controller of Patents and Designs on 13 October 2023.
The questions below are the paper as the University of Mumbai set it at the 2018 examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2018 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 · 12 questions answered
Instructions printed on the paper
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. P. Code 33679, the first paper on the scan, six questions 100 marks
Answer
For full marks, cover: four demands, and the last is the longest because there are TWO opposition procedures and they differ in almost every respect. Define the patent from sections 48 and 53 rather than from the circular definition in section 2(1)(m). Give what IS patentable from section 2(1)(j) and what is NOT from sections 3 and 4, grouped. Then set pre-grant and post-grant opposition side by side in a table and give the grounds once, since they are nearly identical.
Section 2(1)(m) defines a patent as a patent for any invention GRANTED UNDER THIS ACT, which tells the reader nothing, so the content comes from elsewhere. A patent is a STATUTORY MONOPOLY conferred by the State for a limited term. SECTION 48 gives the patentee the exclusive right to PREVENT third parties from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the patented product in India, or from using the patented process and dealing in the product obtained directly by it. SECTION 53 limits the term to TWENTY YEARS FROM THE DATE OF FILING. And the consideration the patentee gives is the DISCLOSURE required by section 10.
Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries, (1979) 2 SCC 511, states the bargain: the object of patent law is to encourage scientific research and industrial progress, and the price of the monopoly is the disclosure at the Patent Office, which passes into the public domain when the term ends.
The definition, section 2(1)(j). An invention is A NEW PRODUCT OR PROCESS INVOLVING AN INVENTIVE STEP AND CAPABLE OF INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION. Three conditions follow: NOVELTY, absolute under section 2(1)(l) and measured against publication or use anywhere in the world; INVENTIVE STEP under section 2(1)(ja), a feature involving technical advance or economic significance or both AND not obvious to a person skilled in the art; and INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION under section 2(1)(ac), capable of being made or used in an industry.
The subject matter now open. Since the PATENTS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005 omitted section 5, PRODUCT PATENTS are available in every field including FOOD, MEDICINE, DRUGS and substances produced by chemical processes, which India had excluded from 1970 to 2005. MICRO-ORGANISMS are patentable, being expressly carved out of the exclusion in section 3(j). Computer related inventions are patentable where they are not programmes PER SE. And a PATENT OF ADDITION may be granted under section 54 for an improvement on one's own patented invention.
SECTION 3 says what are NOT INVENTIONS and SECTION 4 bars atomic energy. The seventeen clauses group as follows.
Nothing was invented. Clause (c), the mere DISCOVERY of a scientific principle, an abstract theory or a living thing or non-living substance OCCURRING IN NATURE. Clause (d), the mere discovery of a NEW FORM of a known substance not resulting in the ENHANCEMENT OF ITS KNOWN EFFICACY, or of a new property or new use for a known substance, or of the mere use of a known process unless it results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant, the explanation deeming salts, esters, polymorphs, isomers, particle size and combinations to be the SAME SUBSTANCE. Clause (e), a MERE ADMIXTURE; clause (f), a MERE ARRANGEMENT OR RE-ARRANGEMENT of known devices working independently in a known way.
It cannot or should not work. Clause (a), FRIVOLOUS inventions and anything CONTRARY TO WELL ESTABLISHED NATURAL LAWS; clause (b), inventions contrary to PUBLIC ORDER OR MORALITY or seriously prejudicial to human, animal or plant life or health or to the environment; and SECTION 4, ATOMIC ENERGY within section 20(1) of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962.
It is not the kind of thing patents govern. Clause (k), MATHEMATICAL OR BUSINESS METHODS, COMPUTER PROGRAMMES PER SE and ALGORITHMS; clause (m), schemes and methods of performing MENTAL ACTS and methods of playing games; clause (n), PRESENTATION OF INFORMATION; clause (l), LITERARY, DRAMATIC, MUSICAL AND ARTISTIC WORKS, which belong to copyright; clause (o), TOPOGRAPHY OF INTEGRATED CIRCUITS, which has its own Act.
Policy about medicine, agriculture and living things. Clause (h), METHODS OF AGRICULTURE OR HORTICULTURE; clause (i), processes for the MEDICINAL, SURGICAL, CURATIVE, PROPHYLACTIC, DIAGNOSTIC OR THERAPEUTIC treatment of human beings and the corresponding treatment of animals; clause (j), PLANTS AND ANIMALS in whole or in part including seeds and varieties, and essentially biological processes, BUT NOT MICRO-ORGANISMS; clause (p), TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE.
The two decisions that give these clauses their shape. Novartis AG v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 1, holds that EFFICACY in clause (d) means THERAPEUTIC EFFICACY and that the clause is a SECOND TIER of qualifying standards over and above novelty and inventive step. Ferid Allani v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11867, holds that the bar in clause (k) is on a programme PER SE and that an invention producing a TECHNICAL EFFECT or making a TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTION is patentable.
The Act provides TWO oppositions, one before grant and one after, and the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 substituted section 25 to create the present scheme.
Pre-grant opposition, section 25(1). Where an application has been PUBLISHED but a patent has NOT BEEN GRANTED, ANY PERSON may in writing REPRESENT BY WAY OF OPPOSITION to the Controller. The representation is considered only after a REQUEST FOR EXAMINATION has been filed, and since the PATENTS (AMENDMENT) RULES, 2024 the Controller must FIRST DECIDE ITS MAINTAINABILITY. The opponent may request a hearing. The Controller may refuse the application, require amendment, or grant the patent, and his order is appealable.
Post-grant opposition, section 25(2). At any time after the GRANT but before the expiry of TWELVE MONTHS from the date of PUBLICATION OF GRANT, any PERSON INTERESTED may give notice of opposition. Section 25(3) requires the Controller to notify the patentee and to constitute an OPPOSITION BOARD of three examiners, one of whom is chairman, which examines the notice and the evidence and submits a RECOMMENDATION with reasons. Section 25(4) requires the Controller, after hearing the patentee and the opponent and considering the recommendation, to order maintenance, amendment or REVOCATION of the patent.
| Pre-grant, section 25(1) | Post-grant, section 25(2) | |
|---|---|---|
| When | After publication, before grant | Within TWELVE MONTHS of publication of grant |
| Who may act | ANY PERSON | Only a PERSON INTERESTED, defined in section 2(1)(t) |
| Form | A REPRESENTATION in writing | A NOTICE OF OPPOSITION |
| Decided by | The Controller alone | The Controller on the recommendation of an OPPOSITION BOARD |
| Outcome | Refusal, amendment or grant | Maintenance, amendment or REVOCATION |
| Appeal | To the High Court under section 117A | To the High Court under section 117A against an order under section 25(4) |
The grounds, which are all but identical for both. Wrongful obtaining; PRIOR PUBLICATION in India or elsewhere; PRIOR CLAIMING in a specification of earlier priority; PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE OR PUBLIC USE IN INDIA before the priority date; OBVIOUSNESS and want of inventive step; that the subject is NOT AN INVENTION or NOT PATENTABLE under the Act; INSUFFICIENCY of description; failure to disclose the information required by SECTION 8 or furnishing false information; in a convention application, that it was not made within TWELVE MONTHS of the first foreign application; non-disclosure or wrong mention of the SOURCE AND GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN of biological material; and ANTICIPATION BY TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE of any local or indigenous community in India or elsewhere.
Choosing between them. The three routes are not alternatives of equal value. PRE-GRANT opposition is the cheapest and is open to anyone, but it lies only in the window between publication and grant and it delays the grant, which is why patentees complain that it is used tactically and why the 2024 Rules require the Controller to rule on MAINTAINABILITY first. POST-GRANT opposition is open only to a person interested and only for twelve months, but it is decided with the assistance of three examiners, so the technical scrutiny is better. REVOCATION under section 64 has no time limit and is the only route open to a defendant already being sued, but it is High Court litigation with its cost and delay.
And the third route, which is not opposition at all. A patent may also be REVOKED under section 64 on petition by a person interested or the Central Government, or by COUNTERCLAIM in an infringement suit. That jurisdiction lay to the Appellate Board and, since the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, belongs to the HIGH COURT. The practical difference is cost: opposition is decided in the patent office on written representations, revocation is litigation.
Conclusion. A PATENT is a statutory monopoly conferred by SECTION 48 for TWENTY YEARS FROM FILING under section 53, paid for by the disclosure section 10 requires, as Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries explains. PATENTABLE inventions are those satisfying section 2(1)(j), that is NEW, INVOLVING AN INVENTIVE STEP and CAPABLE OF INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION, product patents being available in every field since 1 January 2005. NOT PATENTABLE are the seventeen categories in SECTION 3, excluded because nothing was invented, because the thing cannot or should not work, because it is not the kind of subject patents govern, or by policy about medicine, agriculture and living matter, together with ATOMIC ENERGY under section 4, Novartis AG v. Union of India and Ferid Allani v. Union of India supplying the modern construction of clauses (d) and (k). OPPOSITION lies twice: PRE-GRANT under section 25(1), open to ANY PERSON after publication and before grant and decided by the Controller, whose maintainability is now decided first; and POST-GRANT under section 25(2), open only to a PERSON INTERESTED within TWELVE MONTHS of the publication of grant and decided by the Controller on the recommendation of an OPPOSITION BOARD, with revocation under section 64 in the HIGH COURT as the further route.
The rest of the answers
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.