| 英文摘要 |
A patent grants a limited monopoly to the patent applicant in lieu of disclosing his invention to the public. The scope of protection available to a patent applicant is decided entirely based on the claims of the patent, and hence, what is being claimed forms a critical aspect of the strategy. Further, a patent application may disclose different embodiments of the same invention and/or distinct inventions having different inventive concepts. Ideally, claims could be included for both the different embodiments and the distinct inventions. However, sometimes, due to business considerations or huge costs incurred by including additional claims, patent applicants may claim only some of the different embodiments and/or distinct inventions. During the examination stage, the Controller of Patents may raise an objection in the event he opines that the claims of the patent application relate to multiple distinct inventions, with the remedy under Section 16(1) being available to divide the patent application (now referred as“parent application”) into one or more further applications during the pendency of the parent application. However, is there a remedy available to the patent applicant if he desires to voluntarily divide his parent application to cover any embodiment/distinct invention that was not claimed in the parent application? Using the doctrinal method, the paper analyses the language of Section 16(1) by applying rules of interpretation, and while additionally taking into account the legislative intent behind Section 16, ascertains whether the true import of the said section, as it stands today, is actually what has been decided by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) or if the language of Section 16 does provide some leeway to the patent applicants to file voluntary divisional applications for any matter that has been merely disclosed in the parent application and not claimed. |
本站僅提供期刊文獻檢索。
