"U.S. courts have made clear that mere plausibility is not the test for enablement, finding that patentees could otherwise obtain patent rights to purported inventions consisting of little more than respectable guesses as to the likelihood of their success."
"If it is not plausible that the invention solves any technical problem then the patentee has made no technical contribution and the invention does not involve an inventive step." Sandoz Limited v. Bristol-Meyers Squibb Holdings [2023] EWCA Civ 472.
"Both standards try to ask the fundamental question of whether the invention is inventive. They leave open the issue, however, of whether they can be harmonized, or even lead to the same result..."
[
add
]
[
|
|
...
]