I85PREP
⌘ K
Israel Patent Attorney Exam study materials
Israel Patent Attorney Exam study resources

Israel Patent Attorney Exam practice questions

One question at a time. Build your Israel Patent Attorney Exam understanding.

First 50 of 200 questions. Each one lists the choices, the correct answer, and an explanation. The checker at the top of this page saves progress in this browser when it is available.

Continue in the practice tool above to load more questions, 50 at a time.

Question 1Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

Under the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967, which of the following subject matter is expressly excluded from patentability by statute?

  1. A device for filtering industrial wastewater
  2. A pharmaceutical composition comprising a novel active ingredient
  3. A process for manufacturing an industrial alloy
  4. A method of surgical treatment performed on the human body Correct answer.

Explanation

The Patents Law excludes methods of therapeutic or surgical treatment of the human or animal body from patentable inventions, while products such as pharmaceutical compositions and industrial processes remain eligible. The exclusion targets treatment methods as such, not the substances or devices used in them.

Question 2Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

Which statutory body is empowered to grant a patent under the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967?

  1. The Copyright Tribunal of the Ministry of Justice
  2. The Supreme Court sitting as a patent tribunal
  3. The Israel Patent Office, headed by the Registrar of Patents Correct answer.
  4. The Israel Innovation Authority

Explanation

The Law establishes the Israel Patent Office under the Registrar of Patents, who examines applications and grants patents. Courts review decisions but do not grant patents, and the Innovation Authority funds R&D rather than granting rights.

Question 3Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

An applicant files a patent application in Israel. From which date does the statutory term of a granted Israeli patent commence?

  1. The date the annual renewal fee is first paid
  2. The date the patent is granted
  3. The date of filing of the application Correct answer.
  4. The date the application is published for opposition

Explanation

The term of an Israeli patent runs from the filing date of the application, not from grant or publication. This matches the international norm under the Paris Convention and TRIPS, which measure the 20-year term from filing.

Question 4Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

What is the standard statutory period during which a third party may oppose the grant of an Israeli patent after the application is published?

  1. Three months from publication of the application Correct answer.
  2. Twelve months from the filing date
  3. Thirty days from the examiner's first report
  4. Six months from the grant of the patent

Explanation

The Patents Law provides a three-month opposition period running from publication of the accepted application. During this window any person may file a reasoned opposition before the Registrar.

Question 5Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

Under Israeli patent law, what is the effect of a patentee's failure to pay a prescribed renewal fee by the due date?

  1. The patent is automatically transferred to the State
  2. The patent term is shortened by the period of delay
  3. The patent remains fully in force but the patentee loses the right to sue for past infringement
  4. The patent lapses, subject to the possibility of restoration on payment of prescribed fees and within the statutory conditions Correct answer.

Explanation

Non-payment causes the patent to lapse, but the Law allows the patentee to seek restoration by paying the fee and any prescribed additional amount, subject to the statutory conditions and any third-party rights that accrued. The patent is not automatically transferred or merely shortened.

Question 6Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

Which of the following is a statutory requirement for an invention to be patentable under the Israel Patents Law?

  1. It has been kept secret from the public until grant
  2. It is new, involves an inventive step, and is capable of industrial application Correct answer.
  3. It is endorsed by a recognized research institution
  4. It has been reduced to a working prototype before filing

Explanation

The Law defines a patentable invention by the triad of novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability. Reduction to practice, secrecy, or institutional endorsement are not statutory conditions of patentability.

Question 7Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

A patent application is filed in Israel claiming priority from an earlier US application. Within what period must the Israeli application generally be filed to validly claim that priority?

  1. Eighteen months from the filing date of the earlier application
  2. Twenty-four months from the filing date of the earlier application
  3. Twelve months from the filing date of the earlier application Correct answer.
  4. Six months from the filing date of the earlier application

Explanation

The Paris Convention priority period for patents is twelve months from the first filing. Israeli law implements this period for validly claiming priority from an earlier regular application.

Question 8Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

What is the primary statutory function of the claims in an Israeli patent specification?

  1. To identify the inventor's contribution to the assignee
  2. To define the scope of the exclusive right conferred by the patent Correct answer.
  3. To list the examples demonstrating the invention's efficacy
  4. To describe the background art and the problem solved

Explanation

The claims delimit the monopoly and determine what the patentee may exclude others from doing. The description supports and explains the claims, but it is the claims that legally define the protected scope.

Question 9Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

An inventor discloses her invention at an academic conference in Israel and files an Israeli patent application five months later. Which statement best reflects the novelty position under the Patents Law?

  1. The conference disclosure may destroy novelty unless it falls within a statutory exception, such as disclosure at a prescribed exhibition or by unauthorized disclosure Correct answer.
  2. The disclosure is irrelevant because Israel applies a one-year grace period to all public disclosures
  3. The disclosure is cured automatically because the inventor is the first to file
  4. The disclosure only matters if it occurred outside Israel

Explanation

Israeli law generally treats any public disclosure before the filing date as prior art, subject to narrow statutory exceptions such as prescribed exhibitions or disclosures made without the inventor's consent. A general conference presentation does not automatically fall within those exceptions.

Question 10Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

An examiner finds a single prior art document that discloses all features of a claimed combination but in a different technical field, where the document gives no hint of the combination's purpose. What is the strongest argument the applicant can make?

  1. The document is inadmissible because it was published more than fifty years ago
  2. The document does not render the claim obvious because the skilled person would have had no motivation to combine its teaching with the claimed purpose Correct answer.
  3. The document is irrelevant because it does not disclose an enabling example
  4. The document cannot be cited because it originates from a non-patent source

Explanation

Inventive step requires that the skilled person, starting from the prior art, would have reached the claimed invention in an obvious way. Absence of a technical motivation or reasonable expectation of success supports non-obviousness even where features overlap.

Question 11Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

A patentee discovers that a competitor is selling an infringing product. Which remedy is available under the Patents Law in infringement proceedings?

  1. Automatic treble damages without proof of infringement
  2. Criminal imprisonment of the competitor's directors as the primary remedy
  3. Cancellation of the competitor's business license by the Registrar
  4. An injunction against continued infringement and damages or an account of profits, at the court's discretion Correct answer.

Explanation

The Patents Law provides civil remedies: injunctive relief and monetary compensation, whether damages or an account of profits. Criminal sanctions and administrative license revocation are not the statutory remedies for patent infringement.

Question 12Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

A defendant in an infringement action argues that the patent should never have been granted because the claimed invention was obvious. What procedural route is most appropriate to challenge validity?

  1. An appeal to the Innovation Authority's grant committee
  2. A criminal complaint alleging fraud in the Patent Office
  3. A counterclaim for revocation of the patent in the infringement proceedings, or a revocation petition before the Registrar Correct answer.
  4. A request that the examiner reopen the original prosecution file

Explanation

Validity can be challenged by way of a revocation counterclaim in infringement litigation or by a revocation petition to the Registrar. Reopening prosecution, an Innovation Authority committee, or a criminal complaint are not the statutory routes.

Question 13Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

Two co-owners hold an Israeli patent. One co-owner wishes to grant an exclusive license to a third party without the other's consent. What does the Patents Law generally require?

  1. A court order in every case, regardless of any agreement
  2. Approval of the Registrar, who decides between the co-owners
  3. No consent, because each co-owner may independently grant any license
  4. The consent of the other co-owner, unless the co-ownership agreement provides otherwise Correct answer.

Explanation

Co-owners of a patent may exploit the invention jointly, but granting licenses, particularly exclusive ones, generally requires the consent of the other co-owners unless the agreement among them provides otherwise. Unilateral exclusive licensing would impair the other owner's rights.

Question 14Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

During examination, the Registrar issues an office action objecting to the claims. If the applicant fails to respond within the prescribed period, what is the likely consequence?

  1. The application may be treated as abandoned, subject to the possibility of reinstatement under the Law Correct answer.
  2. The application is automatically granted with the claims as filed
  3. The application is forwarded to the Supreme Court for decision
  4. The filing date is moved forward to the date of the office action

Explanation

Failure to respond to an office action within the prescribed period can result in the application being deemed abandoned. The Law provides mechanisms for reinstatement in appropriate circumstances, but not automatic grant.

Question 15Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

An applicant files an Israeli application containing a broad genus claim supported only by a single species example. The examiner objects that the claim is not enabled across its scope. Which statutory principle underlies the objection?

  1. The specification must include a working model for each species
  2. The claims must be limited to a single embodiment by law
  3. The description must sufficiently enable a skilled person to carry out the invention across the claimed scope Correct answer.
  4. The applicant must prove commercial success for the genus

Explanation

The sufficiency requirement demands that the description enable the skilled person to perform the invention over the breadth claimed. A genus supported by only one species may fail this requirement where the skilled person cannot extrapolate to the full scope.

Question 16Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

An employee invents a device in the course of her employment. Under the default rule of the Patents Law, who is entitled to the invention absent an agreement to the contrary?

  1. The employee, because inventors always retain ownership
  2. The State, because employment-based inventions vest in the public
  3. The Patent Office, which holds the rights in trust for the inventor
  4. The employer, because the invention arose in the course of the employment Correct answer.

Explanation

Where an invention is made by an employee in the course of employment, the default statutory rule vests entitlement in the employer, subject to any agreement and to the employee's right to reasonable compensation in certain circumstances. The inventor retains moral attribution but not necessarily the economic right.

Question 17Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

A patentee wants to enforce an Israeli patent against an importer of a product manufactured abroad. Which principle determines whether the importation constitutes infringement?

  1. Importation of a product covered by the patent into Israel for commercial purposes may constitute infringement, subject to any applicable exhaustion rules Correct answer.
  2. Importation is lawful whenever the product was purchased abroad
  3. Importation is never infringement because the patent is territorial and stops at the border
  4. Importation is infringement only if the foreign manufacturer is an Israeli citizen

Explanation

Israeli patent rights extend to commercial importation of products falling within the claims, subject to exhaustion principles where the product was placed on the market with the patentee's consent. Territoriality limits the reach of foreign patents, not the Israeli patent's coverage of imports.

Question 18Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

Which of the following best describes the statutory role of the Registrar in opposition proceedings?

  1. The Registrar appoints a jury of experts to decide the opposition
  2. The Registrar decides the opposition after hearing the parties, and the decision is subject to appeal Correct answer.
  3. The Registrar merely transmits the opposition to the Supreme Court for determination
  4. The Registrar automatically revokes the patent once an opposition is filed

Explanation

The Registrar conducts opposition proceedings, hears the parties, and issues a reasoned decision that may be appealed. Filing an opposition does not automatically revoke the patent, and juries have no role in Israeli civil procedure.

Question 19Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

An applicant wishes to add new matter to the specification after the filing date to broaden the claims. What is the general position under the Patents Law?

  1. New matter is permitted only if it is described in a foreign counterpart application
  2. Added matter that extends beyond the original disclosure is not permitted, because it would give the applicant an unfair priority date for undisclosed subject matter Correct answer.
  3. New matter is permitted if the applicant pays a supplemental filing fee
  4. New matter may be freely added at any time before grant

Explanation

The disclosure defines the priority date, and amendments cannot introduce subject matter not originally disclosed. Allowing broadened new matter would let applicants capture later developments under an earlier date.

Question 20Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

A third party believes a granted Israeli patent is invalid because the claimed invention was publicly used in Israel before the filing date. Which evidence is most directly relevant to establishing prior public use?

  1. A declaration by the patentee admitting the invention is valuable
  2. Evidence that the patentee filed corresponding applications abroad
  3. Proof that the third party later independently developed the same product
  4. Documentary and testimonial evidence showing the invention was used openly and commercially before the filing date Correct answer.

Explanation

Prior public use requires proof that the invention was accessible to the public through open use before the filing date. The patentee's admission of value, foreign filings, or later independent development do not establish prior use.

Question 21Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

A patent claim recites a known compound for use in treating a newly discovered disease. Which consideration is central to whether the claim satisfies inventive step?

  1. Whether the disease is rare in Israel
  2. Whether the claim recites a dosage regimen in the preamble
  3. Whether the newly discovered therapeutic use was unexpected in light of the prior art and produced a credible technical effect Correct answer.
  4. Whether the compound was previously patented by the same applicant

Explanation

For second medical uses, inventive step turns on whether the new therapeutic application was non-obvious and supported by a credible effect. Prior patenting by the same applicant, disease prevalence, or claim preamble wording do not decide the question.

Question 22Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

An applicant files an Israeli application eighteen months after the priority date and requests early publication. What is the statutory default publication rule for Israeli applications?

  1. Applications are published within three months of filing
  2. Applications are published only after grant
  3. Applications are generally published after eighteen months from the priority date, subject to the statutory provisions for early publication or non-publication Correct answer.
  4. Applications remain confidential until the patent expires

Explanation

Israeli practice follows the eighteen-month publication norm measured from the priority date, with mechanisms for earlier publication where requested and for deferral in defined cases. Publication is not deferred until grant or until expiry.

Question 23Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

A patentee's product is held to infringe a prior blocking patent. The patentee seeks a compulsory license from the blocking patent holder. Which statutory framework governs such a request under the Patents Law?

  1. Compulsory licenses are unavailable under Israeli law in all circumstances
  2. The Registrar may grant a compulsory license in defined circumstances, including where the later invention involves an important technical advance of considerable economic significance Correct answer.
  3. A compulsory license is granted automatically by the court upon a finding of infringement
  4. The Minister of Justice may order the transfer of the blocking patent

Explanation

The Patents Law provides for compulsory licenses in specified situations, including dependent inventions representing an important technical advance, subject to conditions protecting the blocking patentee. Compulsory licensing is neither automatic nor unavailable.

Question 24Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

An examiner rejects a claim as lacking unity of invention. What is the most accurate statement of the applicant's options?

  1. The applicant may amend the claims to a single inventive concept, file divisional applications for the other inventions, or contest the objection Correct answer.
  2. The applicant must abandon the entire application and refile
  3. The applicant may merge all inventions into one claim regardless of unity
  4. The applicant must request the Registrar to refer the case to the Supreme Court

Explanation

Where unity is objected to, the applicant can restrict the claims, pursue divisional applications for the remaining inventions, or argue that a single inventive concept links them. Abandonment, forced merger, or court referral are not the required responses.

Question 25Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

A competitor markets a product whose claim element is replaced by a functionally equivalent element not literally recited in the patent claims. Which doctrine might the patentee invoke, and what limits it?

  1. The doctrine of equivalents converts the patent into a trade secret
  2. The doctrine of equivalents applies only to process claims
  3. The doctrine of equivalents may extend protection to non-literal variants, but it is limited by prosecution history estoppel and by the requirement of fairness to the public notice function of claims Correct answer.
  4. The doctrine of equivalents is unavailable in Israeli law, so only literal infringement counts

Explanation

Israeli courts recognize equivalents-based infringement in appropriate cases, but the doctrine is constrained by the claims' notice function and by estoppel arising from prosecution amendments. It is not limited to process claims or unavailable altogether.

Question 26Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

Under the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967, which body is empowered to hear an appeal against a decision of the Registrar refusing to grant a patent?

  1. The Supreme Court sitting as a court of first instance
  2. The District Court Correct answer.
  3. The Patent Office Appeals Tribunal
  4. The Registrar's internal review committee

Explanation

The Patents Law provides that a person aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar may appeal to the District Court, which functions as the first-instance judicial review body over Registrar decisions. The Supreme Court hears further appeals, not first-instance patent refusals, and no separate internal appeals tribunal exists under the Law.

Question 27Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

An Israeli patent application is filed by an applicant who is not the inventor and who claims entitlement by assignment. What must accompany the application to establish the applicant's right to the invention?

  1. A certificate of incorporation of the applicant company
  2. A written assignment or other document evidencing the transfer of rights from the inventor Correct answer.
  3. A declaration of inventorship signed by the inventor only
  4. A statutory oath sworn before the Registrar

Explanation

Where the applicant is not the inventor, the Patents Law requires evidence of the applicant's title, typically an assignment from the inventor. A mere inventorship declaration does not transfer rights, and corporate or oath formalities are not the statutory mechanism for showing entitlement.

Question 28Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

Under the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967, what is the maximum duration of a granted patent, counted from the filing date, before any extension?

  1. Fifteen years
  2. Fourteen years
  3. Twenty-five years
  4. Twenty years Correct answer.

Explanation

The Patents Law sets the basic term at twenty years from the filing date, subject to renewal fees and to specific statutory extensions such as those available for pharmaceutical patents. Shorter figures reflect older or foreign regimes, not the current Israeli term.

Question 29Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

Which of the following acts by a third party, done without the patentee's authorization, constitutes infringement of an Israeli patent under the Patents Law?

  1. Studying the published patent specification for research purposes
  2. Using the patented product privately and non-commercially
  3. Importing the patented product into Israel for commercial sale Correct answer.
  4. Publishing a scientific article describing the patented invention

Explanation

The Patents Law grants the patentee the exclusive right to make, use, sell and import the patented invention, so unauthorized commercial importation is a classic infringement act. Publication, private non-commercial use and mere study of the specification fall outside the scope of the exclusive rights.

Question 30Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

An applicant files an Israeli application containing a genus claim covering a broad class of chemical compounds, but the specification exemplifies and enables only two members of the class. The examiner objects that the claim is not supported by the description. Which requirement is the examiner applying?

  1. Adequate disclosure and support of the claimed scope Correct answer.
  2. Unity of invention
  3. Novelty over the prior art
  4. Industrial applicability

Explanation

The Patents Law requires the specification to describe the invention sufficiently and to support the claims, so a genus claim must be commensurate with what the description enables. Novelty, industrial applicability and unity address different objections and are not the basis for a scope-versus-disclosure mismatch.

Question 31Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

A patentee licenses an Israeli patent to a manufacturer but imposes a condition requiring the licensee to buy all unpatented raw materials exclusively from the patentee. How is such a tying condition treated under the Patents Law?

  1. It is a restrictive arrangement that may be treated as a patent misuse and is subject to the competition-law restrictions on license conditions Correct answer.
  2. It is valid provided the Registrar is notified within thirty days
  3. It is automatically void only if the licensee is a consumer
  4. It is valid because the patentee may freely set license terms

Explanation

The Patents Law restricts license conditions that extend the patent monopoly beyond the patented invention, and tying unpatented materials to a patent license is a recognized form of misuse addressed alongside competition law. The patentee's freedom to contract does not override these statutory limits, and notification does not cure a prohibited condition.

Question 32Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

A third party wishes to challenge a granted Israeli patent on the ground that the invention was obvious in light of two prior art documents. What is the correct procedural route under the Patents Law?

  1. File an opposition before the Registrar within the statutory period after grant, or raise invalidity as a defense in infringement proceedings Correct answer.
  2. Request the Registrar to reopen examination ex officio at any time
  3. File a criminal complaint with the police alleging fraudulent grant
  4. File a cancellation action only in the Supreme Court

Explanation

The Patents Law provides a post-grant opposition procedure before the Registrar within a prescribed period, and invalidity may also be raised as a defense or counterclaim in infringement litigation. The Supreme Court is not the first-instance forum for cancellation, and neither ex officio reopening nor criminal complaint is the statutory route for an obviousness challenge.

Question 33Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

An inventor employed by a company devises an invention in the course of her duties. The employment contract is silent on inventions. Under the default rule of the Patents Law, who is entitled to the invention?

  1. The employer and employee as equal co-owners
  2. The employee, because inventorship always vests title personally
  3. The Registrar, who holds it in trust for the parties
  4. The employer, because the invention was made in the course of employment Correct answer.

Explanation

Under the Patents Law, an invention made by an employee in the course of employment belongs to the employer absent an agreement to the contrary, and the employee may be entitled to reasonable compensation in certain circumstances. The default is not employee ownership, Registrar trusteeship or automatic co-ownership.

Question 34Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

A patentee holds an Israeli patent on a medicine and fails to supply the Israeli market adequately. A third party seeks to manufacture the medicine locally without the patentee's consent. Which statutory mechanism is most directly relevant?

  1. Revocation of the patent by the Registrar without any hearing
  2. Compulsory license provisions permitting exploitation under defined conditions Correct answer.
  3. Extension of the patent term to compensate the public
  4. Automatic lapse of the patent for non-use after one year

Explanation

The Patents Law contains compulsory licensing provisions allowing the Registrar to grant a license where the patent is not being exploited in Israel in a manner adequate to supply the market, subject to safeguards. The patent does not lapse automatically after a year, revocation requires a proper procedure, and term extension is unrelated to inadequate supply.

Question 35Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

An applicant wishes to rely on a prior foreign application filed eleven months earlier. What must the applicant generally do to obtain priority in Israel under the Patents Law?

  1. Claim priority in the Israeli application within the conventional twelve-month period and file the required priority document Correct answer.
  2. Surrender the foreign application before filing in Israel
  3. Publish the Israeli application immediately upon filing
  4. File a separate petition to the Minister of Justice for permission

Explanation

Israeli law recognizes the Paris Convention priority right, so an applicant may claim priority within twelve months of the first application and must supply the priority document as required. No ministerial petition, surrender of the foreign application or immediate publication is a condition of the priority claim.

Question 36Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

A patent specification describes an invention but the claims are drafted so broadly that they read on the prior art, while the description itself is adequate. What is the most appropriate examiner objection?

  1. Failure to pay the filing fee
  2. Lack of novelty in the claims in view of the prior art Correct answer.
  3. Lack of industrial applicability
  4. Insufficient disclosure in the description

Explanation

Where the claims encompass subject matter already disclosed in the prior art, the objection is lack of novelty of the claims, regardless of the adequacy of the description. Insufficient disclosure, industrial applicability and fee issues address different statutory requirements.

Question 37Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

Two parties independently claim entitlement to the same pending Israeli application. One alleges the other derived the invention from him. Which proceeding is designed to resolve such a dispute under the Patents Law?

  1. A criminal prosecution for theft of trade secrets
  2. An arbitration that binds the Registrar automatically
  3. An ordinary trademark opposition
  4. An entitlement dispute brought before the Registrar or the court, which may determine the person entitled to the patent Correct answer.

Explanation

The Patents Law provides for determination of entitlement disputes, allowing the Registrar or the court to decide who is entitled to the invention and to the grant of the patent. Trademark opposition, criminal trade-secret prosecution and private arbitration do not determine statutory entitlement to a patent.

Question 38Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

An applicant files an Israeli application and later realizes that the specification omits an essential feature needed to support the claims. Which statement best reflects the Patents Law's treatment of adding matter after the filing date?

  1. New matter may be added at any time before grant without affecting the filing date
  2. New matter may be added freely as long as the claims remain within the original scope
  3. Added matter is permitted only after the patent is granted
  4. Added matter is permitted only to the extent it is directly and unambiguously derivable from the original disclosure, and it cannot broaden the claimed subject matter beyond that disclosure Correct answer.

Explanation

The Patents Law prohibits extending the disclosure beyond what was originally filed, so amendments must be supported by the original disclosure and cannot broaden the claims beyond it. Free addition, addition without any effect on the filing date, and post-grant addition do not reflect the statutory rule.

Question 39Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

A claim recites a known compound defined by its structure for use in treating a particular disease. The prior art discloses the same compound for a different therapeutic use. Which analysis best reflects how Israeli practice assesses novelty of the use claim?

  1. The claim is automatically novel because the disease is new
  2. The claim is automatically anticipated because the compound itself is known
  3. The claim is unpatentable because medical uses are excluded from patentable subject matter
  4. The claim may be novel if the new use is not rendered obvious by the prior art, and the specification must support and enable that use Correct answer.

Explanation

Israeli practice recognizes purpose-limited claims where the new therapeutic use is novel and not obvious over the prior art, provided the specification supports and enables that use. Neither automatic novelty from a new disease nor automatic anticipation from a known compound is correct, and medical uses are not categorically excluded.

Question 40Patent Law and the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967

An examiner raises a unity-of-invention objection, asserting that the claims cover two independent inventions. What is the applicant's most accurate option under the Patents Law?

  1. Merge all claims into a single independent claim regardless of content
  2. Request that the Registrar grant two separate patents on the same application
  3. Ignore the objection because unity is not examined in Israel
  4. Amend the claims to retain one inventive concept, or file one or more divisional applications for the other inventions Correct answer.

Explanation

Where unity is lacking, the applicant may restrict the claims to a single inventive concept or pursue the remaining subject matter in divisional applications, which retain the original filing date. Unity is examined, claims cannot simply be merged without support, and one application cannot yield two patents.

Question 41Patentability: novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability, exclusions

Under the Israeli Patent Law, 5727-1967, which of the following is the core statutory test for novelty of an invention?

  1. The invention was not sold in Israel during the twelve months preceding filing
  2. The invention was not described in any prior Israeli patent application
  3. The invention was not worked commercially in Israel before the filing date
  4. The invention was not published or otherwise made available to the public before the priority date, whether in Israel or abroad Correct answer.

Explanation

Israeli novelty is assessed against the prior art as a whole, including publications and public use anywhere in the world before the priority date. Territorial commercial working in Israel is not the statutory benchmark, and prior Israeli applications are only one component of the prior art. The twelve-month grace concept does not define the general novelty standard.

Question 42Patentability: novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability, exclusions

An inventor publicly demonstrated a working prototype at a trade fair in Tel Aviv fourteen months before filing a patent application in Israel, with no confidentiality obligation. What is the effect on novelty?

  1. The disclosure destroys novelty because it occurred before the filing date and no statutory grace period applies Correct answer.
  2. The disclosure only matters if a third party copied the prototype
  3. The disclosure is excused because trade fair exhibitions are always privileged
  4. The disclosure is excused because it was made by the inventor personally

Explanation

Public disclosure without confidentiality anywhere in the world before the filing or priority date forms part of the prior art. Israeli law does not provide a general one-year inventor grace period for trade fair demonstrations. Whether third parties copied the invention is irrelevant to the novelty assessment.

Question 43Patentability: novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability, exclusions

Which statement best describes the inventive step requirement in Israeli patent examination?

  1. The invention must be the result of a genuine flash of creative genius beyond routine engineering
  2. The invention must not be obvious to a person skilled in the art in light of the prior art, considering the problem the invention addresses Correct answer.
  3. The invention must be commercially successful in at least one market
  4. The invention must differ from the closest prior art in more than one technical feature

Explanation

Inventive step asks whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to the skilled person having regard to the prior art and the problem to be solved. Israeli practice follows a problem-and-solution style analysis rather than a subjective genius test. Commercial success and the sheer number of differing features are not the legal criteria.

Question 44Patentability: novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability, exclusions

A patent claim is directed to a method of doing business implemented purely on a general-purpose computer with no technical effect beyond normal data processing. How should patentability be assessed in Israel?

  1. The claim is patentable because business methods were expressly removed from the exclusions
  2. The claim is patentable only if the business method is novel in Israel
  3. The subject matter may fall within an exclusion as a business method or abstract idea, and the absence of a technical contribution supports rejection Correct answer.
  4. The claim is automatically patentable because it is implemented in software

Explanation

Israeli law excludes certain subject matter, and purely abstract or business-method schemes without a technical contribution face eligibility objections. Implementation on generic hardware does not by itself convert an abstract scheme into patentable subject matter. Novelty in a local market and the mere fact of software implementation do not resolve the eligibility question.

Question 45Patentability: novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability, exclusions

Which of the following is a recognised requirement for industrial applicability of an invention under Israeli law?

  1. The invention must be capable of registration as a design as well
  2. The invention must already be manufactured in Israel at the filing date
  3. The invention can be made or used in an industry, including agriculture Correct answer.
  4. The invention must produce a profit for the applicant

Explanation

Industrial applicability requires that the invention be capable of being made or used in any kind of industry, a concept that includes agriculture and services. It does not require existing manufacture, profitability, or dual registrability. The test is about practical exploitability, not commercial results.

Question 46Patentability: novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability, exclusions

A claim recites a known compound together with a dosage range that the specification supports with routine experiments showing no unexpected effect. What is the strongest objection?

  1. Lack of industrial applicability, because dosages cannot be industrially applied
  2. Lack of novelty, because any dosage of a known compound is inherently disclosed
  3. Exclusion from patentability, because medical dosages are not patentable subject matter
  4. Lack of inventive step, because selecting a dosage within a predictable range is an obvious routine optimisation Correct answer.

Explanation

Where a range is chosen by routine experimentation within predictable parameters and no unexpected technical effect is shown, the selection is generally obvious. Industrial applicability is satisfied because pharmaceutical products are industrially manufacturable. A specific dosage range is not automatically disclosed by a generic mention of the compound, and medical uses are not categorically excluded.

Question 47Patentability: novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability, exclusions

Two independent prior art documents each disclose part of the claimed combination, but the specification contains no teaching that would motivate the skilled person to combine them. How does this affect inventive step?

  1. The combination lacks industrial applicability, because it was never actually built
  2. The combination is obvious, because every feature appears somewhere in the prior art
  3. The combination is novel but automatically excluded as a mere aggregation
  4. The combination is likely inventive, because an absence of motivation to combine means the skilled person would not arrive at the claim without inventive effort Correct answer.

Explanation

Obviousness requires that the skilled person would actually have been motivated to combine the teachings. The mere presence of individual features across separate documents does not establish that the combination was obvious. Industrial applicability and aggregation exclusions are separate questions from the motivation to combine.

Question 48Patentability: novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability, exclusions

What is the role of the person skilled in the art in assessing inventive step under Israeli practice?

  1. An average consumer familiar with the product category
  2. A hypothetical practitioner with the common general knowledge and ordinary skill in the relevant field at the priority date Correct answer.
  3. A patent examiner with legal training but no technical background
  4. The inventor who filed the application, judged by their actual knowledge at filing

Explanation

The skilled person is a legal construct representing ordinary competence and common general knowledge in the field at the relevant date. The inventor's actual knowledge is not the benchmark, because obviousness is judged objectively. Consumers and legally trained examiners without technical expertise do not fill this role.

Question 49Patentability: novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability, exclusions

A claim is directed to a naturally occurring microorganism isolated from its natural environment and purified. Which assessment is most consistent with Israeli practice?

  1. Isolation and purification may render the material patentable if it is not previously available in that form and provides a technical contribution Correct answer.
  2. Naturally occurring organisms can never be patentable regardless of isolation
  3. The claim is patentable only if the microorganism is genetically modified
  4. The claim is excluded because living organisms are not industrial products

Explanation

Isolated and purified biological material that is not available in that form in nature may qualify as patentable subject matter. Microorganisms are capable of industrial use, for example in fermentation. Genetic modification is not a prerequisite, and living organisms as such are not categorically outside industrial applicability.

Question 50Patentability: novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability, exclusions

Which of the following best captures the 'problem and solution' approach used in inventive step analysis?

  1. Identify the examiner's preferred embodiment, then require the claim to match it
  2. Identify the applicant's commercial problem, then compare sales figures with competitors
  3. Identify the closest prior art, determine the distinguishing features and the objective technical problem, then ask whether the claimed solution would have been obvious Correct answer.
  4. Identify the number of claims, then require each claim to solve a separate problem

Explanation

The approach starts from the closest prior art, establishes the distinguishing features and the resulting objective technical problem, and then evaluates whether the solution was obvious. Commercial data and examiner preference are not the analytical framework. The number of claims has no bearing on the substance of the obviousness test.