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?

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

Sandoz strikes fresh biosimilar deal with South Korean biotech

19 March 2026 The Swiss generics giant secures global commercialisation rights as partnership targets multi-billion-dollar loss-of-exclusivity opportunity.

Big Pharma

INTA: ‘New normal’ for in-house counsel as budgets fall

16 March 2026 Research from the International Trademark Association finds in-house counsel taking on more strategic work while facing shrinking budgets, prompting a shift towards alternative billing and greater use of AI.

Big Pharma

UKIPO extends funding for specialist IP crime unit as counterfeit risks grow

10 March 2026 UK government funding will support the London-based IP crime unit until 2029, as EUIPO and European authorities step up efforts to tackle unsafe counterfeits.

More features

Masimo convinces judge that Apple took secrets—but it’s not enough

Sandoz strikes fresh biosimilar deal with South Korean biotech

US firm boosts patent bench with Desmarais hire

J&J unit targets former employee over alleged mass data theft

HSF Kramer hires patent litigator as partner in Germany

INTA: ‘New normal’ for in-house counsel as budgets fall

Mylan withdraws defence claims against Novo in Wegovy dispute

Six Summit takeaways: In-person IP, agentic AI and ‘infollution’ risks

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

More on this story

Editor's picks

Editor's picks

More features