Practice question
An inventor proves by final court decision that another obtained the inventor’s patent without consent. The court finds no fraudulent intent but declares the claimant the true and actual inventor. The holder argues Section 68 necessarily fails without fraud. Is that correct?
- Yes, fraud is always indispensable
- Yes, consent never matters
- Yes, every deprivation is lawful without fraud
- No; deprivation without consent and deprivation through fraud are stated alternatives
- No, because no final decision is needed
Legal references
- RA 8293, Intellectual Property Code, Sections 67-70, 73 and 76-107, read with RA 9502: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1997/ra_8293_1997.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.