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
Trump’s return sparks calls for pro-patent agenda
5 December 2024

Editor's picks

Americas
Trump’s return sparks calls for pro-patent agenda
5 December 2024
Americas
Comparing life sciences IP in Brazil and the US
28 November 2024
Americas
UPC bans Meril Life Sciences from selling infringing heart valve
19 November 2024
Americas
Amgen set for ‘at-risk’ launch of blockbuster eye drug biosimilar
24 October 2024
Americas
Big Pharma counsel embrace AI but data and legal risks loom
24 October 2024
Asia
President Xi sends message to AIPPI’s World Congress
22 October 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

Fed Circ orders Teva to delist five patents from Orange Book
Sarepta wins $115M in patent dispute over muscular dystrophy drug
Novartis shields eye-drop patent at European Patent Office
CREATES Act unfairly tips the scales to generics
LSPN launches its first-ever US awards to celebrate life sciences leaders
Pharma giants seek closure on COVID-19 vaccine rows
How Inhibrx defended a $450m damages suit
Foley & Lardner adds litigation and transaction expert in New York