A patent offers inventors the right for a limited period to prevent other people from using or sharing an invention without their authorization. When a patent right is granted to inventors, they are given a limited or short-term monopoly right, like 20 years after which the rights pass into the public domain. The primary purpose of the issuance of patent rights is to encourage the invention and improvement of industrial methodologies. Patent rights are issued to an inventor based on the nature of the invention and the country an inventor wants to launch the business. Patents are typically intended to cover processes that possess new functional or technical features.
Legislation and Jurisdiction of Patent in the United Kingdom
The current patent legislation in the United Kingdom comprises the Patents Act 1977 amended and supplemented by the Copyright and Patent Act of 1988 and the 2004 Patent Act. The principal impact of the 1977 Patent Act has been drawn from the United Kingdom patent law closer to main European trading partners following the European Patent Convention. The United Kingdom patents are granted by either the European Patent Office or the UK IPO upon a patent application filled accordingly (Thomson Reuters, 2021). The United Kingdom patent rights are given to two groups: an inventor within the UK and overseas owners who must make necessary applications at patent offices in the respective countries or through the international patent system like the Patent Cooperation Treaty. Patent rights are given to individuals from countries that have subscribed to European Patent Convection (Thomson Reuters, 2021). Based on the United Kingdom Patent Act of 1977, SAM does not qualify for patent rights protection for various reasons. First, SAM is not an individual; however, the Patent Act 1977 only allows patent protection for people within the United Kingdom (Thomson Reuters, 2021). SAM is a computer-based program designed and developed in Australia. Therefore, it does not qualify to be given the UK patent rights. Secondly, even if SAM gives Nikolai Petrovsky patent rights to trade in its name in foreign countries, he still does not qualify to be given the United Kingdom's patent rights under the following grounds. The UK patent rights for inventors from foreign countries are given to individuals from countries that have subscribed to European Patent Convection (Thomson Reuters, 2021). Australia is not a member of the European Patent Convection hence has not subscribed to it. Consequently, inventors from Australia are not guaranteed UK patent rights on the INF-VAC-001 vaccine or any invention. SAM can get the United Kingdom patent rights if it forms a joint business venture with a UK-based inventor who qualifies for the rights under the UK Patent Act 1977 (Thomson Reuters, 2021). Despite Australia being a non-member of the European Patent Convection and Nikolai Petrovsky, an Australian citizen, the citizenry was a significant factor used to reject SAM's patent rights protection to operate in the United Kingdom. Therefore, Nikolai Petrovsky must meet this criterion to be given patent rights to work in the United Kingdom as outlined by the Patent Act 1977.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Besides, when patent rights are given to inventors, they are given limited monopoly rights to operate in the designated jurisdiction. Since patent rights given to Nikolai Petrovsky through SAM will have a limited monopoly, it will prevent local inventors from using the same or related ideas used by SAM to design and develop the INF-VAC-001 vaccine. Thus, rejecting SAM's Intellectual Property Office is a legal way of protecting local inventors or encouraging joint ventures of foreign inventors with locals (Thomson Reuters, 2021). Thus, rejecting SAM's IOP application by the European Patent Office is accepted under the UK Patents Act 1977 and the Copyright and Patent Act of 1988. However, the Intellectual Property Office application is rejected if the inventor does not meet other crucial provisions outlined by the United Kingdom Patent Act.
Furthermore, the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) requires that all patentable intellectual properties to use inventive concepts, technologies, or ideas that other inventors cannot use or are challenging to understand by other inventors. But the concepts, technologies, and ideas used to develop and design the INF-VAC-001 vaccine were simple; thus, any skilled person in the art could use it to create the vaccine. Therefore, SAM's INF-VAC-001 vaccine did not meet the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) quality measures leading to rejecting the patent application. The UK IPO office requires that all inventions must involve inventive and formal steps to prove the authenticity and the credibility of the invention. However, the creation of INF-VAC-001vaccine did not follow proper steps that could verify the authenticity of the vaccine and all machines used in creating INF-VAC-001.
Patentability of Intellectual Property in the United Kingdom
The United Kingdom adopted its patentability criteria from the European Patent Convention. Therefore for any invention to become patentable in the United Kingdom, EPC criteria must be met. Similarly, SAM must also consider these criteria to be granted the United Kingdom patent rights to protect its INF-VAC-001 vaccine ideas from authorized use by third parties (MacLean & Harper, 2021). The following are the three crucial criteria that an invention must meet to become patentable in the United Skills. First, the invention must be new and must not form part of state of the art. In the United Kingdom, an invention is given patent rights if human knowledge used to develop or design the program has not been available to the public in any part of the world (MacLean & Harper, 2021). An invention is considered new if it has never appeared to be part of the already existing state of the art in any country. A team at Flinders University in Australia used artificial intelligence to develop and create the INF-VAC-001 vaccine. However, the process used involved already utilized programs to create the vaccine. Because the team at Flinders University in Australia used already existed ideas, concepts, and programs, the invention ceases to be new under the UK Patents Act 1977 and the Copyright and Patent Act of 1988. Based on the new invention criterion, SAM's invention did not meet the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO); thus, rejecting its IPO application was legal.
Secondly, an invention must not just be an idea that has not formerly existed, but it must as well owe its existence to the exercise by the human intellect of an advanced creative thought-process. Under the UK Patent Act 1977, procedures and steps involved in developing an invention are crucial factors that are critically observed when evaluating the patentability of an invention (MacLean & Harper, 2021). Additionally, steps used to create an invention must not be apparent or known to professionals in the same field or area. SAM's INF-VAC-001 vaccine failed to meet the inventive steps and uniqueness of the idea criteria because the team at Flinders University in Australia used already existed ideas, concepts, and programs. The team also failed to incorporate creative steps and ideas that could make the invention unique and challenging for professionals in the same field of study (MacLean & Harper, 2021). Failing to meet inventive steps outlined in the criteria infers that other scientists or experts can improve SAM's ideas to create a more effective INF-VAC-001 vaccine to help control the influenza virus. Thus, the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) rejecting SAM's patent rights application was legal because the program did not meet UK Patent Act 1977 guidelines and provisions.
Thirdly, an invention must meet the industrial applicability of the invention in the United Kingdom patentability criterion. The criterion infers that an invention's functionality and technical aspect are crucial factors that must be observed before awarding patent rights to operate in the United Kingdom (MacLean & Harper, 2021). Additionally, ideas and processes used to create an invention must be capable of being applied in a particular industry. The industrial application of a program proves the authenticity of an idea and the ability to meet the intended goal. The industrial applicability of an invention purposely aims to broaden a sense of distinction and prove the purity of an intellectual or aesthetic value (MacLean & Harper, 2021). Concerning the industrial applicability, SAM's INF-VAC-001 vaccine met all the minimum requirements and provisions of the UK Patent Act 1977. Nevertheless, an invention must meet all three criteria for patent protection rights in the United Kingdom. Hence, rejecting SAM's patent rights application was legal because the program did not meet UK Patent Act 1977 guidelines and provisions.
On the other hand, it is not mandatory to get patent rights to protect a new invention in the United Kingdom; instead, the inventor may consider keeping invention details secret. Unfortunately, only UK residents can use the process because they do not need to apply for foreign business permits (Contreras & Husovec, 2021). Nikolai Petrovsky is an Australian resident thus must apply for a United Kingdom business permit. To be given the UK permit, Nikolai Petrovsky must specify the nature of the business he wants to run and how it will affect local traders or manufacturers. Nikolai Petrovsky must meet all three criteria to be given patent rights to operate in the business in the United Kingdom (Contreras & Husovec, 2021). But because SAM's INF-VAC-001 vaccine did not meet all these criteria, the UK could not issue Nikolai Petrovsky with patent rights following the UK Patent Act 1977 guidelines and provisions.
Judgment and Conclusion
The UK Patent Act 1977 provides guidelines and criteria that inventors must meet to be given patent rights. These criteria differ depending on whether an inventor is a United Kingdom resident, comes from countries that subscribed to European Patent Convention or not. The requirements discussed above apply to SAM's case. Based on the case analysis, the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) legally rejected Nikolai Petrovsky's patent application based on the following legal grounds: SAM's INF-VAC-001 vaccine is not a new idea because it was developed from an already existed program thus does not meet the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) patent issuance guidelines. Secondly, SAM's INF-VAC-001 vaccine did not involve inventive steps, which are mandatory steps for patent issuance under the UK Patent Act 1977. Despite SAM's INF-VAC-001 vaccine met the industrial applicability, the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) legally rejected SAM's patent application because it did not meet the first two most crucial criteria.
In summary, SAM's INF-VAC-001 vaccine should not be given patent rights by the UK Intellectual Property Office unless Nikolai Petrovsky meets all the criteria. Since SAM's vaccine failed to meet crucial criteria that an invention must fulfill, the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) decision to reject SAM's is upheld by the United Kingdom High court. Thus, SAM's submissions are null, void, and failed to meet the thresholds that could persuade and convince the UK High court to overturn the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) decision.
Baranov, O., Kucher, V. O., Ustymenko, O., Utkina, M., & Hrybachova, I. (2020). Mechanism of state economic security management in the direction of intellectual property rights protection: cases of selected industries.
Contreras, J. L., & Husovec, M. (2021). Issuing and tailoring patent injunctions–a cross-jurisdictional comparison and synthesis. Injunctions in Patent Law: A Trans-Atlantic Dialogue on Flexibility and Tailoring (Jorge L. Contreras and Martin Husovec, Editors, Cambridge University Press, forthcoming) .
MacLean, M. R., & Harper, D. R. (2021). Intellectual Property Issues for Bacteriophages. Bacteriophages: Biology, Technology, Therapy , 731-749.
Miglio, A. (2021, January). The Jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court: A Model for the Application of the Brussels Ia Regulation to non-EU Disputes?. In EU Civil Procedure Law and Third Countries (pp. 71-94). Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG.
Parks, E. (2018). The European Unified Patent Court and UK assumptions on its post-Brexit patent litigation.
Pezard, A. (2021). Intellectual property law: Europe adopts a European patent with unitary effect and Unified Patent Court. In The Language of Law and Food (pp. 193-203). Routledge.
Thomson Reuters. (2021). Patents Act 1977 . https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/1-503-9351?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true
Trigg, R. (2019). United Kingdom Patent Decisions 2018. IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , 50 (3), 331-351.
Trigg, R. (2020). United Kingdom Patent Decisions 2019. IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , 51 (3), 341-361.
Wright, E. (2020, September). Research handbook on intellectual property and digital technologies. In Intellectual Property Forum: Journal of the Intellectual Property Society of Australia and New Zealand (No. 121, pp. 62-64).