論文代寫價錢：蜂蜜用於醫療敷料的爭論
這樣實際上是一個爭論蜂蜜用於醫療敷料。這種情況下被視為專利案件法律分析的本質。這裡來的HHJ Fysh QC縣法院的專利,是呈現的判斷是,沒有侵犯專利。但法官拒絕缺乏新穎性條款爭論Brightwake有限。在這種情況下,上訴人是Apimed誰是適當舉行歐洲專利(英國)1237561號(“專利”)。專利主要指出,蜂蜜可以用作醫療敷料劑。本期被告“Brightwake有限公司另一個公司的商業銷售類似產品和使用專利Apimed的概念。
論文代寫價錢：蜂蜜用於醫療敷料的爭論
Brightwake在這個問題上的立場是,沒有真正的侵犯,它指出,專利是顯而易見的,或者蜂蜜有藥用使用的概念並不是創新或新。專家證人指出,蜂蜜作為藥用的使用屬性有其根源很多世紀以前(李,2014)。 Apimed說蜂蜜不是用於現代衛生保健。根據他們的聲音,蜂蜜的藥用價值並非商業使用或英國從1900年之後。他們指出,這使得他們的獨特的概念。他們指出,蜂蜜的常規治療包括紗布敷料和水膠體敷料由他們是相當創新和小說。
論文代寫價錢：蜂蜜用於醫療敷料的爭論
The case is actually a dispute about Honey used in medical dressing. This case has been considered as the Patenting case law that analysis the Obvious nature. This case came to trail of HHJ Fysh QC in the Patents County Court, judgment that was rendered was that Patent was not infringed. But the judge rejecting the lack of novelty clause argument by Brightwake limited. In this case the appellant was Apimed who is the propriety who held European Patent (UK) No 1,237,561 (“the Patent”). Patent primarily states that Honey can be used as a medical dressing agent. In this issue the defendant “Brightwake Ltd another corporation commercially sold similar products and used the patented concept of Apimed.
論文代寫價錢：蜂蜜用於醫療敷料的爭論
Brightwake stance on this issue was that there was no real infringement and it stated that the patent was obvious or that the notion of honey having medicinal uses was not innovative or new. The expert witness stated that the usage of honey as a medicinal property had its roots many many centuries ago (Li, 2014). Apimed stated that honey was not used in modern health would care. According to their voice, honey’s medicinal properties were not commercially used or followed in UK from 1900. They cited that this makes their notions unique. They had stated that the conventional treatment of honey involved gauze dressing and hydrocolloid dressings developed by them was rather innovative and novel.