Geschreven door studenten die geslaagd zijn Direct beschikbaar na je betaling Online lezen of als PDF Verkeerd document? Gratis ruilen 4,6 TrustPilot
logo-home
Tentamen (uitwerkingen)

LML4801 Assignment 2 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 1 2026 - DUE 14 April 2026

Beoordeling
5.0
(1)
Verkocht
4
Pagina's
9
Cijfer
A+
Geüpload op
06-04-2026
Geschreven in
2025/2026

LML4801 Assignment 2 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 1 2026 - DUE 14 April 2026; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and explanations. For assistance, Whats-App 0.8.1..2.7.8..3.3.7.2... Imagine that you are the patent manager for CIDSS, and you are tasked with assisting Dr Dlamini with applying for the patent. Is there anything from the scenario that would pose a challenge to the granting of the patent, or if the patent is granted, anything that might lead to the revocation of the patent at a future date (seeing as how South Africa is a non-examining jurisdiction as far as patents are concerned).

Meer zien Lees minder
Instelling
Vak

Voorbeeld van de inhoud

LML4801
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2026
Unique number: 816972
Due Date: 14 April 2026
QUESTION 1

Dr Dlamini‟s invention reveals several potential risks relating to novelty, inventiveness, and
patentable subject matter, which may affect both the granting and future validity (revocation)
of the patent.

1. Novelty concerns (section 25(5) and 25(6))

The most immediate risk arises from prior disclosure, particularly Dr Dlamini‟s March 2022
conference presentation in Durban. The abstract was published in publicly available
proceedings, which forms part of the state of the art because it was made available to the
public before the priority date.1




Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
 Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison and reference purpose,
Terms of use
 Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
 Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, reference,orand
misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
 Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
 Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.

Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.

, +27 81 278 3372



QUESTION 1

Dr Dlamini‟s invention reveals several potential risks relating to novelty,
inventiveness, and patentable subject matter, which may affect both the granting and
future validity (revocation) of the patent.

1. Novelty concerns (section 25(5) and 25(6))

The most immediate risk arises from prior disclosure, particularly Dr Dlamini‟s March
2022 conference presentation in Durban. The abstract was published in publicly
available proceedings, which forms part of the state of the art because it was made
available to the public before the priority date.1

In terms of s 25(5) of the Patents Act 57 of 1978, an invention is not new if it forms
part of the state of the art immediately before the priority date.2 Section 25(6) further
provides that the state of the art includes all matter made available to the public
anywhere in the world by written or oral description.3

Although the abstract only refers to “potential pharmaceutical applications,” South
African law does not require full technical disclosure for novelty to be destroyed;
what is required is that the prior disclosure must anticipate the essential features of
the invention.4

However, an important qualification arises from Merck Sharp Dohme Group v Cipla
Agrimed (Pty) Ltd, where the Supreme Court of Appeal held that prior disclosure
must be enabling in order to destroy novelty.5 Since the conference abstract does
not disclose the nanoparticle encapsulation method, it is unlikely to anticipate the
process claim, although it may still affect the compound claim if sufficiently disclosed.




2. Discovery vs invention (section 25(2))


1
Patents Act 57 of 1978 s 25(6).
2
Patents Act 57 of 1978 s 25(5).
3
Patents Act 57 of 1978 s 25(6).
4
Gentiruco AG v Firestone SA (Pty) Ltd 1972 (1) SA 589 (A).
5
Merck Sharp Dohme Group v Cipla Agrimed (Pty) Ltd 2015 BIP 101 (SCA).
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.

Gekoppeld boek

Geschreven voor

Instelling
Vak

Documentinformatie

Geüpload op
6 april 2026
Aantal pagina's
9
Geschreven in
2025/2026
Type
Tentamen (uitwerkingen)
Bevat
Vragen en antwoorden

Onderwerpen

$4.74
Krijg toegang tot het volledige document:

Verkeerd document? Gratis ruilen Binnen 14 dagen na aankoop en voor het downloaden kun je een ander document kiezen. Je kunt het bedrag gewoon opnieuw besteden.
Geschreven door studenten die geslaagd zijn
Direct beschikbaar na je betaling
Online lezen of als PDF

Beoordelingen van geverifieerde kopers

Alle reviews worden weergegeven
1 maand geleden

5.0

1 beoordelingen

5
1
4
0
3
0
2
0
1
0
Betrouwbare reviews op Stuvia

Alle beoordelingen zijn geschreven door echte Stuvia-gebruikers na geverifieerde aankopen.

Maak kennis met de verkoper

Seller avatar
De reputatie van een verkoper is gebaseerd op het aantal documenten dat iemand tegen betaling verkocht heeft en de beoordelingen die voor die items ontvangen zijn. Er zijn drie niveau’s te onderscheiden: brons, zilver en goud. Hoe beter de reputatie, hoe meer de kwaliteit van zijn of haar werk te vertrouwen is.
EduPal University of South Africa (Unisa)
Volgen Je moet ingelogd zijn om studenten of vakken te kunnen volgen
Verkocht
152313
Lid sinds
7 jaar
Aantal volgers
36024
Documenten
4874
Laatst verkocht
1 uur geleden

At EduPal we provide academic assistance, exam preparation, detailed notes, and exam packs to help college students study with confidence. Our tutoring is comprehensive and personalised, focusing on your subject needs and deadlines. We guarantee quality support, clear guidance, and proven strategies that improve understanding, marks, and pass rates. For more information Whats-App 0.8.1..2.7.8..3.3.7.2..

4.2

14119 beoordelingen

5
8201
4
2761
3
1842
2
478
1
837

Recent door jou bekeken

Waarom studenten kiezen voor Stuvia

Gemaakt door medestudenten, geverifieerd door reviews

Kwaliteit die je kunt vertrouwen: geschreven door studenten die slaagden en beoordeeld door anderen die dit document gebruikten.

Niet tevreden? Kies een ander document

Geen zorgen! Je kunt voor hetzelfde geld direct een ander document kiezen dat beter past bij wat je zoekt.

Betaal zoals je wilt, start meteen met leren

Geen abonnement, geen verplichtingen. Betaal zoals je gewend bent via iDeal of creditcard en download je PDF-document meteen.

Student with book image

“Gekocht, gedownload en geslaagd. Zo makkelijk kan het dus zijn.”

Alisha Student

Bezig met je bronvermelding?

Maak nauwkeurige citaten in APA, MLA en Harvard met onze gratis bronnengenerator.

Bezig met je bronvermelding?

Veelgestelde vragen