Classic Classic Quiz Patents - Defences by Diamondsareforever Diamondsareforever 0 played - 9 yrs ago A quiz on the UK law of patents with relation to defences. QUIZ 15 QUESTIONS medium 1 In which sections are the provisions relating to infringement? Patents Act, s 60(1) & (2)Patents Act, s 60(1)(a) & (4)Patents Act, s 16 & 51Patents Act, s 12(2) & (4)Patents Act, s 15 & 16 2 Which case held that repairing is not making for the purposes of s 60(1)(a)? Schutz v Werit (2013)Haberman v Jackel (1999)Smith Kline & French v Evans (1989)Monsanto v Stauffer Chemical (1985)Lubrizol v Esso (1997) 3 Which provision allows the validity of a patent to be put in issue as a defence? Patents Act, s 19Patents Act, s 99Patents Act, s 16Patents Act, s 54Patents Act, s 74 4 Which provision contains the main defences? Patents Act, s 60(5)(a)Patents Act, s 74Patents Act, s 54Patents Act, s 60(5)Patents Act, s 12 5 What is the defence in s 60(5)(a)? Act done for experimental purposesAct done privately and for purposes which are not commercialBolar exemptionExtemporaneous phramaceutical preparationsVisiting ships 6 Which case held that privately means done for the person's own use? Smith Kline & French v Evans (1989)Monsanto v Stauffer Chemical (1985)Lubrizol v Esso (1997)Brustle v GreenpeaceAsahi Kasei Kogyo's Application (1991) 7 How many tablets were produced in Smith Kline & French v Evans (1989)? 60, 00016, 00059, 00012, 00045, 000 8 Which subsection relates to an act done for experiment purposes relating to teh subject matter of the invention? Patents Act, s 60(5)(b)Patents Act, s 60(5)(i)Patents Act, s 60(5)(h)Patents Act, s 60(5)(n)Patents Act, s 60(5)(a) 9 Which case held that trials done to satisfy regulatory bodies were not done for 'experimental purposes'? SKF v EvansMonsanto v Stauffer Chemical (1985)Lubrizol v Esso (1997)Brustle v GreenpeaceAsahi Kasei Kogyo's Application (1991) 10 What section will be added by the Legislative Reform (Patents) Order 2014 S 60(5)(b)S 17(6)S 12(4)S 20(1)(a)S 60(6D) 11 Which case held that the purposes must relate to the patent in suit in the sense of having a real, distinct and direct connection with the subject-matter? SKF v EvansLubrizol v Esso (1997)Brustle v GreenpeaceAsahi Kasei Kogyo's Application (1991)Genetech Inc's Patent (1987) 12 Which section contains the Bolar exception? S 60(5)(i)S 60(5)(a)S 60(5)S 60(5)(b)S 60(5)(d) 13 Which article contains the prior use defence? S 64(2)S 60(5)S 17S 64(1)S 11 14 Which case held that the preparations must be so advanced as to be about to result in the infringing act being done? Brustle v GreenpeaceLubrizol v Esso (1997)Asahi Kasei Kogyo's Application (1991)Genetech Inc's Patent (1987)Howard Florey/Relaxin (1995) 15 Which sections allows for preparations done in the course of business to be authorised to business partners to perform or assigned or transmitted on death? S 64(2)S 17S 14S 12S 4 A mistake in this Quiz ? Contact the author Commentaires
