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
11 February 2026   Courts on both sides of the Atlantic recorded a flurry of settlements this week, as Astellas, GSK, and Alexion drew a line under long-running disputes with generic rivals.
Big Pharma
27 November 2025   Clinical trials create a patent paradox. With EPO case law rapidly reshaping the 'expectation of success' test—most recently T136/24—the line between innovation and obviousness is blurred. Amanda Simons of J A Kemp offers drafting strategies to secure protection for your downstream innovations.
Big Pharma
20 November 2025   A new report from Clarivate highlights a jump in the tech’s adoption among IP professionals over the past two years, as well as concerns over governance.