| Here you will get a clear picture by reading the | | | | he can make, use and sell his invention |
| following simple example “stool and chair | | | | ‘stool’ with out any fear of infringing |
| invention concept”, which is familiar to all | | | | others patent right. Hence, he has both negative |
| patent practitioners. | | | | right and positive right on his invention. |
| A portable seating appliance art ‘stool’ | | | | Where as, Bartholomew can only exclude |
| having platform with three legs was invented by | | | | [negative right] others from making, using or |
| Abraham. And he applied for a patent and | | | | selling devices which has four leg, back support |
| obtained patent grant for his invention. | | | | and arm support, and his patent does not give |
| Another inventor Bartholomew had come with | | | | him any right to make these devices. Indeed, |
| invention “chair”, in which he added a | | | | since chair also has a platform and three legs |
| fourth leg, back support and arm support to have | | | | [which is equivalent to stool], if chairs are made |
| more comfortable. As the “chair’ has | | | | without obtaining a license from Abraham, then it |
| improvement over the ‘stool’, the patent | | | | will be infringing Abraham’s stool patent. |
| office granted a patent to Bartholomew for his | | | | Thus, it will be clear that a person having a patent |
| invention. | | | | does not give that person the right to practice his |
| Now there is interesting question, who owns what | | | | invention. The basic patent only has both positive |
| rights? | | | | and negative right, where as all improvement |
| Abraham invented basic portable appliance art | | | | patent enables their owner to exclude others |
| ‘stool’, and he can exclude others from | | | | from practicing their patented products. |
| making, using, or selling his stool invention and also | | | | |