Omnipharm Ltd v Merial [2013] EWCA Civ 2 (23 January 2013)

Omnipharm Ltd v Merial [2013] EWCA Civ 2 (23 January 2013)

The 564 patent was insufficient because it lacked proper exemplification and practical guidance for formulating a spot-on involving two actives, leaving the skilled person with only broad indications and no real assistance beyond common general knowledge. The 881 patent was valid as its specification contained sufficient practical examples enabling the skilled person to work the invention across its breadth.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 2
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Omnipharm Limited; Defendant/appellant: Merial
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation and Declarations of Non Infringement / Appeal From High Court (patents Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judge's finding of invalidity for the 564 patent upheld; 881 patent valid; costs order affirmed.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Insufficiency, Costs, Non Infringement
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Obviousness Insufficiency Costs Non Infringement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Omnipharm Limited

Claimant/respondent

Merial

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation and Declarations of Non Infringement / Appeal From High Court (patents Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 564 patent is invalid for insufficiency
  2. 2 Whether the 881 patent is valid
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in awarding costs against Merial

Ratio Decidendi

The 564 patent was insufficient because it lacked proper exemplification and practical guidance for formulating a spot-on involving two actives, leaving the skilled person with only broad indications and no real assistance beyond common general knowledge. The 881 patent was valid as its specification contained sufficient practical examples enabling the skilled person to work the invention across its breadth.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judge's finding of invalidity for the 564 patent upheld; 881 patent valid; costs order affirmed.

Orders

  • 564 patent declared invalid for insufficiency
  • 881 patent declared valid