Practice question
Before Applicant A's filing and any claimed priority date, an independent third party publicly discloses the identical claimed technical solution abroad. The disclosure is prior art under section 24 and no nonprejudicial-disclosure exception applies. A independently developed it and never saw the publication. Which answer best applies novelty?
- Personal ignorance automatically removes prior art.
- Only disclosures made in the Philippines can ever matter.
- The stipulated prior art defeats novelty despite A's independent development and lack of awareness.
- Independent development automatically transfers the earlier publication's ownership to A.
- A can cure novelty merely by giving the same solution a new name.
Legal references
- Intellectual Property Code, RA 8293, sections 21–27, https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1997/ra_8293_1997.html
- RA 9502, sections 5–6 amending IP Code sections 22.1 and 26, https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2008/ra_9502_2008.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.