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

Life sciences leaders recognised at LSPN Awards USA 2025
Americas
Life sciences leaders recognised at LSPN Awards USA 2025
8 May 2025

Editor's picks

Americas
Life sciences leaders recognised at LSPN Awards USA 2025
8 May 2025
Americas
LSPN: Using ‘the patentee’s friend’ in Section 112 claims
6 May 2025
Americas
Why US patent reform is ‘essential’ for US economic prosperity and security
29 April 2025
Europe
Meril v Edwards: Harmonisation of obviousness at the UPC and the EPO
24 April 2025
Americas
WIPR Diversity & Inclusion reveals Top 100 People in IP for 2025
24 April 2025
Big Pharma
AstraZeneca unit faces class-action suit over alleged Soliris monopoly
17 April 2025

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

Life sciences leaders recognised at LSPN Awards USA 2025
LSPN: Counsel grapple with AI’s impact on training and critical thinking
LSPN: Trump's policy storm causing chaos and confusion
LSPN: Using ‘the patentee’s friend’ in Section 112 claims
ResMed voids sleep apnoea tech patent at PTAB
Novartis settles with licensee of blood cancer therapy day before trial
Foley adds five-partner team from Perkins Coie and K&L Gates
US warns of rising counterfeit drug threat from India and China