Ishita Garg, School of Alliance, Alliance University
ABSTRACT
The utilitarian theory states that making a beneficial product or technique accessible to the public would increase its application and provide an incentive for society to develop on it, resulting in new innovation, with the creator gaining a financial and proprietary benefit. Although it seems to be a win-win situation, there still is a drawback in the form of free riders. As a consequence, there may be a situation where the innovation is exploited without further invention, resulting in a stagnation scenario. Another disadvantage is that economic disparity may entice people to file patents for little items or discoveries. The fundamental premise of patent law is that a patent is always issued for a novel, creative, non-obvious, and beneficial invention. Novelty and non-obviousness are two criteria that serve distinct purposes and contribute to different aspects of creative work. For a patent claim to be valid, the work must be novel and the notion must be rearranged in the intellectual property.
The primary objective of novelty and originality is to be protected in the same way as unregistered designs are protected. A patent's main novelty and obviousness are essential concepts, and an invention will not be included since it is not new and is already well-known to the public. This is why the novelty criterion in patent laws is intended to prevent previous art from being patented for profit. Since significant jurisprudence has been established on Intellectual Property Rights, the aforementioned implications and remedies have been reflected in law in many nations. The fundamental concepts of patentability, novelty, and obviousness of patentability are, of course, shared by all patent systems, but to various degrees of precision. The primary purpose of this paper is to offer a reasonable sense of the comparability in laws between countries and give a better understanding regarding the same
Keywords: Intellectual Property, Novelty, Patent, Patent Law
