The IP Court issued a judgment on December 4, 2014, holding that one cannot claim to have made a substantive contribution to the conception of a chemical compound inventions if only the structure of the invention is identified while the “preparation” for making the invention is absent.  Thus, the conception of the invention must comprise of both the identification of the specific structure of the invention and the synthesis processes for making said invention.  The Court held that if the appellant cannot prove that he/she made substantive contributions to the structure of the invention and the preparation thereof, the appellant cannot claim that he/she is the “inventor” of the invention.