In the recent times, where there is high level of reverse engineering and counterfeiting of products or processes, it has become a common policy of obtaining patents, and Intellectual Property Rights has been gaining a lot of precedence in the recent times. This is based on the notions of appropriability factor (Bittlingmayer, 1988). In the case of patents and IPR, there are a number of confusions that are found to exist in the societies. Interpretation and the precedent set by the laws are generally confusing to the public.
Notions of what can be patentable and the degree of control of the patents in the actual production and processes needs to be analyzed with the common knowledge and the territorial aspects. This is based on the subjective interpretation based on the previous precedent and the legislations of the cases. To further analyze the intricate aspects of patenting, the case of Apimed Medical Honey Ltd v Brightwake Ltd  has been used in this analysis. The relevant laws and the views of both sides of the argument are presented.
This case sets the precedent and helps in understanding how patents are enforced. The obvious clause of the patent shows that it is very difficult to patent the knowledge that was already known. In this case, the judge during appeals stated that it is a common knowledge that honey has medicinal properties. Apimed made claims developing specific techniques was not considered by them. This case helps in understanding the difficulties of obtaining and enforcing a patent that has already been procured by the company.
The events of the case also point towards the obscurity of the law, interpretation of the law and the processes involved in actual case law (Helmers, Love, and McDonagh, 2013).
Intellectual property refers to maintain the knowledge gained and maintain ownership of the product design and the process involved. There are two kinds of intellectual property. They are formal and informal methods. Formalized system includes patent. Patents are of many kinds that are derived based on the situation. In the case of Apimed Vs. Brightwake, the case of copyright infringement has been probed in detail in this analysis. It primarily discusses about the enforceability of the patent and the impact of common knowledge in processes. The exact details of the case show that there are different perceptions involved in the patent law. It also explains in detail the issues involved in patent case.