LML4801
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2026
Unique number:
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
DISCLAIMER & TERMS OF USE
Educational Aid: These study notes are intended to be used as educational resources and should not be seen as a
replacement for individual research, critical analysis, or professional consultation. Students are encouraged to perform
their own research and seek advice from their instructors or academic advisors for specific assignment guidelines.
Personal Responsibility: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information in
these study notes, the seller does not guarantee the completeness or correctness of all content. The buyer is
responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information and exercising their own judgment when applying it to their
assignments.
Academic Integrity: It is essential for students to maintain academic integrity and follow their institution's policies
regarding plagiarism, citation, and referencing. These study notes should be used as learning tools and sources of
inspiration. Any direct reproduction of the content without proper citation and acknowledgment may be considered
academic misconduct.
Limited Liability: The seller shall not be liable for any direct or indirect damages, losses, or consequences arising from
the use of these notes. This includes, but is not limited to, poor academic performance, penalties, or any other negative
consequences resulting from the application or misuse of the information provided.
, For additional support +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).
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2026
Unique number:
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
DISCLAIMER & TERMS OF USE
Educational Aid: These study notes are intended to be used as educational resources and should not be seen as a
replacement for individual research, critical analysis, or professional consultation. Students are encouraged to perform
their own research and seek advice from their instructors or academic advisors for specific assignment guidelines.
Personal Responsibility: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information in
these study notes, the seller does not guarantee the completeness or correctness of all content. The buyer is
responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information and exercising their own judgment when applying it to their
assignments.
Academic Integrity: It is essential for students to maintain academic integrity and follow their institution's policies
regarding plagiarism, citation, and referencing. These study notes should be used as learning tools and sources of
inspiration. Any direct reproduction of the content without proper citation and acknowledgment may be considered
academic misconduct.
Limited Liability: The seller shall not be liable for any direct or indirect damages, losses, or consequences arising from
the use of these notes. This includes, but is not limited to, poor academic performance, penalties, or any other negative
consequences resulting from the application or misuse of the information provided.
, For additional support +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).
