fip06b - Fundamentals of Intellectual Property Final...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Fundamentals of Intellectual Property Final Examination Professor Field Fall 2006 HEED INSTRUCTIONS Do not waste time answering more questions than you need to! This is a three-hour, open-book exam. You may consult any written materials. Do not discuss the exam with others. Put your exam number and answers on the sheet provided. Note that questions in Part I are worth four times as much as those in Part II. Part I: Multiple choice [80 points — 20 questions total] Enter the letter for the most correct concluding phrase or statement in the numbered space on the answer sheet . In Part I, only the first 5 answers will count in each section. A. Patents [Section references to 35 U.S.C.] Answer only 5 of 7. 1. If applies for a business-method-software patent: A. U.S. protection would last 14 years (§ 173). B. U.S. protection is less likely than European protection. C. it will be refused if CyberBad already has copyright protection. D. U.S. protection would probably last at least 17 years (§ 154(b)(1)(B)). 2. Jones (J), a graduate assistant, made key contributions to an invention. Iffy Odds University, as employer-assignee, owns the patent later issued. J was not listed as an inventor, but she: A. has no rights because, inventorship aside, IOU owns the patent. B. can probably get all royalties that have been paid to IOU. C. should prevail in an action to correct inventorship. D. has no rights if the named inventor was her boss. 3. Because she didn’t trust her boss, J (Q2) did not provide all of the information needed to make the invention work. In those circumstances: A. IOU’s patent is invalid. B. she could quit her job and file for her own patent. C. she should offer to disclose the information to enhance her bargaining position. D. if she discloses the information to IOU, she could get a second patent in her name. 4. Two years before the application (Q2) was filed, IOU Professor Klewlus (K) published an article describing a similar invention. In those circumstances: A. K should tell IOU, and it should immediately file another application. B. K should get a share of royalties on the existing patent. C. the existing patent could be invalid under § 103. D. the existing patent is invalid under § 102(b). 1 of 6
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
5. Mojo (M) sells reusable swabs that, when dabbed in ordinary wood alcohol, remove warts. The unpatented swabs have no other use. M holds only a process patent. In such circumstances: A. anyone can sell the swabs if they wish. B. anyone who buys wood alcohol other than from M is an infringer. C. M has no right to stop people from using unpatented products as they wish. D. M can require people who buy its swabs also to buy its alcohol for wart removal. 6.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 7

fip06b - Fundamentals of Intellectual Property Final...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online