通过本篇论文抄袭率-有关专利侵权的案例分析和讨论可以了解到，这是一个相当简单的专利侵权案件，商标侵权也在本案中被考虑。专利是授予产品发明的专有权。调查发现，该公司拥有“欧洲专利(英国)No 1237 561”专利。这意味着他们对未来20年的产品开发拥有专有权。Apimed希望吸引投资者并在社区内获得有竞争力的无形资产。公司获得专利通常是为了获得竞争优势，并确保其研究设计不被竞争对手抄袭和出售。这个过程确保了公司能够在竞争激烈的市场中生存。但是，了解专利的重要事实是一个特定的专利是否可以申请专利。应该有一个保证条款来声明一个特定的过程或产品是可申请专利的(英格兰和帕克，2012)。在此分析中，详细披露了该专利的显著性条款和后续的专利细节。接下来有关论文抄袭率-有关专利侵权的案例分析和讨论分享给留学生们阅读。
This case has many important elements that can be understood. First is it explaining about how patents are awarded, enforceability of the patent, obviousness clause of the parent, how judgement are rendered and common knowledge cases can also be understood from this cases. It also states how the companies and corporations utilize settlements and move on in their economic prospects. A number of interesting dimensions could be understood from this case. These are the primary reasons for selections of this particular case law.
Of the different types of Intellectual property that has been developed. This is a pretty straightforward case of patent infringements. Trademark infringement was also considered in this case. Patent is the exclusive right granted for invention of the product. It was found that the Company had the patent” European Patent (UK) No 1,237,561.” This means that they hold exclusive right to the product development for the next 20 years .. Apimed hoped to attract investors and gain competitive intangible asset in the communities. Patents are generally obtained by companies in order to gain competitive advantage and to ensure that their research designs are not copied and sold by competitors. This process ensures that companies are able to stay afloat in competitive markets. But the important facts while understanding about a patent is whether a particular patent is patentable or not. There should be surefire clause to state that a particular process or product is patentable (England and Parker, 2012). The obviousness clause of the patent and the subsequent details about the patent has been divulged in detail in this analysis.
From a simplistic standpoint Apimed stated that their patent was novel, had practical use and had inventive step. The use of hydrocolloid element to the honey was considered to be the inventive step. They had stated that the company had faced significant damage to their monetary and economic asset owing to the actions of Brightwake.
Brightwake Ltd limited stated that this patent was in itself not valid because it was a obvious known medicinal method of production. It was even mentioned that the medicinal uses of honey were mentioned in the bible. It was also said that there was no real copyright infringement by the company. These are the usual defenses that are put forward by the defendant in these cases.
Apimed counter argument was that their specific method of wound dressing was innovative and novel.
It was ruled that in this case there was no patent infringement by the judge. This was then appealed and it was ruled that the patent was infringed but the obviousness clause of honey being medicinal was common knowledge and hence was rejected. This case is one of the cases that serves as a precedent of what can be patented.