Not “hired to invent” so no entitlement – Merial v Intervet

By war In Australia, we are often told our US clients get title through the “work made for hire” or the “hired to invent” doctrines under US law. Intervet has failed in its attempt to rely on the latter doctrine in its unsuccessful attempt to patent a “soft chew” medicament for pets. Moshinsky J also accepted Merial’s opposition on grounds of lack of inventive step. This post will deal with the entitlement issue. Lack of inventive step case, based on the 2001 amendments, will be the subject of a later post.
Some background
In 2002, Intervet was part of the Akzo group. Most of …read more

Source:: IP Wars

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *