Skip Navigation


Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice Advance Access originally published online on March 7, 2006
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 2006 1(5):297; doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpl027
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
1/5/297    most recent
jpl027v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Phillips, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author (2006). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved

Editorial

Obviousness and IP: time to reconsider

Jeremy Phillips
The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

On 6 February, the day this editorial was written, the United Kingdom Patent Office surprised members of the local intellectual property professions when it launched an unexpected discussion paper, Consultation on the Inventive Step Requirement in United Kingdom Patent Law and Practice and sought informed response by 31 May.

On the assumption that the provisions of patent law are intended to reflect a balance between the complementary . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?