Subscribe
shutterstock_2176439439_velishchuk_yevhen
Velishchuk Yevhen / Shutterstock.com
12 September 2023FeaturesBig PharmaJeffrey Lewis and Stuart Knight

Is there a step between ‘inventive’ and ‘nonobviousness’?

US law requires a patented invention be nonobvious, ie, a patent may not be obtained “if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious … to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.” 35 U.S.C. 103.

Already registered?

Login to your account

To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.

Two Weeks Free Trial

For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk


More on this story

Big Pharma
Why Novartis lost its treatment dispute with Teva
17 January 2023   The pharma company’s arguments focusing on ‘inventive step’ failed to convince a London court that the Israeli generic drug maker had infringed, explains Azadeh Vahdat of EIP.
Europe
The plausibility battleground at the EPO
9 November 2020   Plausibility in the context of the inventive step and sufficiency requirements can be a contentious issue before the European Patent Office. Markus Grammel of Grünecker reports.


Editor's picks

Americas
Amgen set for ‘at-risk’ launch of blockbuster eye drug biosimilar
24 October 2024

Editor's picks

Americas
Amgen set for ‘at-risk’ launch of blockbuster eye drug biosimilar
24 October 2024
Asia
President Xi sends message to AIPPI’s World Congress
22 October 2024
Unified Patent Court
‘Every CMS filing is painful’: Notes from a Unified Patent Court dispute
26 September 2024
Unified Patent Court
Interview: Klaus Grabinski, UPC Court of Appeal president
24 September 2024
Unified Patent Court
‘Be prepared, and don’t assume at the UPC’: Christopher Stothers
12 September 2024
Unified Patent Court
Does the UPC offer a fresh take on patent validity?
5 September 2024

More on this story

Big Pharma
Why Novartis lost its treatment dispute with Teva
17 January 2023   The pharma company’s arguments focusing on ‘inventive step’ failed to convince a London court that the Israeli generic drug maker had infringed, explains Azadeh Vahdat of EIP.
Europe
The plausibility battleground at the EPO
9 November 2020   Plausibility in the context of the inventive step and sufficiency requirements can be a contentious issue before the European Patent Office. Markus Grammel of Grünecker reports.

More on this story

Big Pharma
Why Novartis lost its treatment dispute with Teva
17 January 2023   The pharma company’s arguments focusing on ‘inventive step’ failed to convince a London court that the Israeli generic drug maker had infringed, explains Azadeh Vahdat of EIP.
Europe
The plausibility battleground at the EPO
9 November 2020   Plausibility in the context of the inventive step and sufficiency requirements can be a contentious issue before the European Patent Office. Markus Grammel of Grünecker reports.

More features

Sandoz lands reduced antitrust award of $70m
New president’s to-do list: Patent bills, non-competes, USPTO director?
Sanofi subsidiary fends off $450m trade secrets case
Regulatory expert joins White & Case
Teva faces $500m fine for antitrust breaches over MS drug
Pfizer infringed haemophilia therapy patent, says court
Cooley adds ex-Gowling partner
Apple wins just $250 in Masimo smartwatch clash