This site would like to set some non-essential temporary cookies. Some cookies we use are essential to make our site work.
Others such as Google Analytics help us to improve the site or provide additional but non-essential features to you.
No behavioural or tracking cookies are used.
To change your consent settings, read about the cookies we set and your privacy, please see our Privacy Policy



PATENTS: In Omnipharm Ltd v Merial, the High Court of Justice found that what may be considered 'obvious to try' does not necessarily mean a patent lacks inventiveness.

Omnipharm Ltd v Merial
[2011] EWHC 3393 (Pat)

The High Court of Justice found that what may be considered 'obvious to try' does not necessarily mean a patent lacks inventiveness, a number of factors need to be considered to ascertain whether an invention involves the essential inventive step, such as in this instance whether the resulting activity is obvious or not.

Sign up for a free trial for a week’s access to the entire latest issue of the journal
You must be logged in and have an active full subscription to view full articles.
Log in now
If you are not already a subscriber, take a subscription for full access to our entire online archives.
Subscribe

Search Journal Archives



Our publication archives contain all of our articles, dating back to 2001.
Can’t find what you are looking for?
Try an Advanced Search

Log in to E-Commerce Law Reports
Subscribe to E-Commerce Law Reports
Register for a Free Trial to E-Commerce Law Reports
E-Law Alerts
E-Commerce Law Reports Pricing
Feedback

Social Media

Follow E-Commerce Law Reports on TwitterE-Commerce Law Reports on LinkedInE-Commerce Law Reports RSS Feed