Omnipharm Ltd v Merial

Omnipharm Ltd v Merial

The 564 patent was held invalid for insufficiency because it failed to provide enabling disclosure for the skilled person to formulate combination products of fipronil and an IGR as spot-ons without undue effort, offering only broad lists and no practical examples. The judge's costs order requiring Merial to pay 40% of Omnipharm's costs was upheld as a fair reflection of the parties' relative success. Merial was entitled to costs of applications to maintain security for costs, as Omnipharm's late compromise necessitated the applications.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Omnipharm Limited; Defendant/appellant: Merial
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (patents) / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division, Patents Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Sufficiency of Disclosure, Obviousness, Costs, Security for Costs
Intellectual Property Law Patent Law Patent Validity Sufficiency of Disclosure Obviousness Costs Security for Costs

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Omnipharm Limited

Claimant/respondent

Merial

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (patents) / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division, Patents Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 564 patent is invalid for insufficiency
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in awarding 40% of Omnipharm's costs against Merial
  3. 3 Whether Merial is entitled to costs for applications to maintain security pending appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The 564 patent was held invalid for insufficiency because it failed to provide enabling disclosure for the skilled person to formulate combination products of fipronil and an IGR as spot-ons without undue effort, offering only broad lists and no practical examples. The judge's costs order requiring Merial to pay 40% of Omnipharm's costs was upheld as a fair reflection of the parties' relative success. Merial was entitled to costs of applications to maintain security for costs, as Omnipharm's late compromise necessitated the applications.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Merial's appeal against the finding of invalidity for insufficiency of the 564 patent is dismissed.
  • Merial's appeal against the costs order is dismissed; Merial to pay 40% of Omnipharm's costs.