LML4801
assignmen
Assignment 2 Semester 2
2025
UNIQUE CODE:
Detailed Solutions, References & Explanations
DUE DATE: 18 Sept 2025
Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning,
comparison and reference purpose,
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the
contents of this document as your own work,
Fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise
or misuse this document.
Disclaimer
Extreme care has been used to create this
document, however the contents are provided “as
is” without any representations or warranties,
express or implied. The author assumes no
liability as a result of reliance and use of the
contents of this document. This document is to
be used for comparison, research and reference
purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be
reproduced, resold or transmitted in any form or
by any means.
, 0688120934
PREVIEW
Assignment 2
Patent Infringement and Possible Defences
In South African law, patents are governed by the Patents Act 57 of 1978. A patent
grants the patentee the exclusive right to exploit an invention, which includes making,
using, exercising, or disposing of the invention without authorisation. 1 Infringement
occurs when another party uses a patented process or product without the patentee’s
consent.2
In this scenario, Graham’s 2014 patent claims an additive (C) used in a delignification
process. Megan’s process instead makes use of additives A and B, based on her
discovery in a 1990 engineering book. If Megan’s process is materially the same as
Graham’s patented process, differing only in substituting C with A, it may fall within the
scope of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.3 However, her addition of B —
which addresses environmental concerns and was not contemplated in Graham’s
patent — distinguishes her process. The critical issue is whether the process as a whole
performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve
substantially the same result as the patented process.4
1
Patents Act 57 of 1978 s 45.
2
Gentiruco AG v Firestone SA (Pty) Ltd 1972 (1) SA 589 (A).
3
Patents Act 57 of 1978 s 65.
4
Bata Ltd v Footwear (Pty) Ltd 1973 (1) SA 402 (A). Disclaimer
Extreme care has been used to create this document, however the contents are provided “as is”
without any representations or warranties, express or implied. The author assumes no liability as
a result of reliance and use of the contents of this document. This document is to be used for
comparison, research and reference purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be
reproduced, resold or transmitted in any form or by any means.
assignmen
Assignment 2 Semester 2
2025
UNIQUE CODE:
Detailed Solutions, References & Explanations
DUE DATE: 18 Sept 2025
Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning,
comparison and reference purpose,
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the
contents of this document as your own work,
Fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise
or misuse this document.
Disclaimer
Extreme care has been used to create this
document, however the contents are provided “as
is” without any representations or warranties,
express or implied. The author assumes no
liability as a result of reliance and use of the
contents of this document. This document is to
be used for comparison, research and reference
purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be
reproduced, resold or transmitted in any form or
by any means.
, 0688120934
PREVIEW
Assignment 2
Patent Infringement and Possible Defences
In South African law, patents are governed by the Patents Act 57 of 1978. A patent
grants the patentee the exclusive right to exploit an invention, which includes making,
using, exercising, or disposing of the invention without authorisation. 1 Infringement
occurs when another party uses a patented process or product without the patentee’s
consent.2
In this scenario, Graham’s 2014 patent claims an additive (C) used in a delignification
process. Megan’s process instead makes use of additives A and B, based on her
discovery in a 1990 engineering book. If Megan’s process is materially the same as
Graham’s patented process, differing only in substituting C with A, it may fall within the
scope of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.3 However, her addition of B —
which addresses environmental concerns and was not contemplated in Graham’s
patent — distinguishes her process. The critical issue is whether the process as a whole
performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve
substantially the same result as the patented process.4
1
Patents Act 57 of 1978 s 45.
2
Gentiruco AG v Firestone SA (Pty) Ltd 1972 (1) SA 589 (A).
3
Patents Act 57 of 1978 s 65.
4
Bata Ltd v Footwear (Pty) Ltd 1973 (1) SA 402 (A). Disclaimer
Extreme care has been used to create this document, however the contents are provided “as is”
without any representations or warranties, express or implied. The author assumes no liability as
a result of reliance and use of the contents of this document. This document is to be used for
comparison, research and reference purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be
reproduced, resold or transmitted in any form or by any means.
