DB-5 Intellectual Property Law - Research Paper Example

Intellectual Property Laws: Case Study (Add (Add (Add Intellectual Property Laws: Case Study The given case context clearly reflects that Omni Chemical Co. has obtained a patent in the State Y for the production of Fast Grow39, the formula of which contained cornstarch and Nitrophos. In other words; Nitrophos, information about the discovered nitrogen-phosphate compound, has been patented by Omni Chemical Co. in State Y. Hence, the Green Chemical’s act constitutes infringement of State Y’s intellectual property laws.

The case indicates that Dr. Klutz Bumpkin, the discoverer of the particular nitrogen-phosphate compound, never patented his discovery in State X. However, it does not affect the validity of the patent acquired by Omni Chemical Co. in State Y because “patents are specific to particular jurisdictions” (Patent Lens, n.d). Since Bumpkin had published his discovery without patenting it, any person or business was free to use this discovery or any of its contents without prior permission. The Green Chemical Ltd.

may argue that this discovery had been made available worldwide and hence it could be considered as general information. However, the case scenario specifically states that the journals which published the discovery of Bumpkin in State Y had never been checked or used by anyone prior to 1992. In that situation, the Omni Chemical Co. attained a patent in 1988 for their production formula, which included this discovery in State Y and hence no other individual or business in this State has the right to use this compound.

The argument that Nitrophos has not been separately patented in State Y is not valid as this information is a part of the Omni Chemical’s production formula. Intellectual property right laws clearly define various rights of a patentee. Patent right “is an exclusive license or right granted to a company or an individual to produce a particular product or use a particular technology on the basis of its claim to be the discoverer of the product or technology.” (Nayar, 2010, p.143). Referring to this definition, it is clear that the Omni Chemical Co.

has obtained a license over its fertilizer from the State Y Patent Office and hence the company has the sole right to manufacture and distribute the product across state Y. Such a license would serve Omni Chemical Co. as a tool to prevent unauthorized reproduction and distribution of the patented product. Patent laws do not allow third parties to use any content of the patented property and therefore the Omni Chemical Co. has complete right over its fertilizer called Fast Grow39. The fact that Omni Chemical Co.

is a foreign firm does not restrict its intellectual property rights in State Y. The State Y has the legal obligation to serve the interests of its patent holders regardless of their nationality (World Trade Organization, 2012).By copying the cornstarch and Nitrophos formula used by Omni Chemical Co., the Green Chemical Ltd. violated the intellectual property laws of State Y, in which the firm operates. In this context, the State Y’s Patent Office has the obligation to serve the interests of the aggrieved party (Omni Chemical Co.) and thereby protect the party’s intellectual property rights.

It must be noted that the court decision may depend on individual patent provisions practiced in the country since there is no common international patent laws. To conclude, since there has been an infringement of Omni Chemical’s patent rights, the request for revocation must not be granted. ReferencesNayar, R. (2010). Economics Part A: Introductory Microeconomics. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill.Patent Lens. (n.d). Patent laws around the world. Retrieved from http://www.patentlens.net/daisy/patentlens/ip/around-the-world.

htmlWorld Trade Organization. (2012).Overview: The TRIPS agreement. Retrieved from http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel2_e.htm