本篇文章是一篇关于专利的案例分析的文章，这意味着他们拥有未来20年产品开发的专有权(Helmers, Love, and McDonagh, 2013)。Apimed希望吸引投资者，并在社区中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复制和出售。这一过程确保了公司能够在竞争激烈的市场中生存下来，但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。本篇芝加哥论文代写文章由美国论文人EducationRen教育网整理，供大家参考阅读。
This means that they hold exclusive right to the product development for the next 20 years (Helmers, Love, and McDonagh, 2013). 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. One such case that was filed recently was under trademark policy where Cadbury Company tried to trademark the purple color of their wrapper. It was stated that in this case that the color purple is very obvious and cannot be patented. A number of international cases across the spectrum such as the famous Apple vs. Samsung patent laws are used to understand about the overall framework as to what a patent interpretation constitutes.
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 an 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 serve as a precedent of what can be patented.