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

Europe
UPC confirms validity of Edwards Lifesciences heart valve tech patent
23 July 2024

Editor's picks

Europe
UPC confirms validity of Edwards Lifesciences heart valve tech patent
23 July 2024
Americas
New-look WIPR Leaders 2024 is ‘most rigorous’ yet
2 July 2024
Americas
Earthquake Chevron: A massive shock to the system?
2 July 2024
Americas
Amarin wins appeal to advance ‘skinny label’ suit over Hikma generic
27 June 2024
Biotechnology
Guardant Health files suit against Tempus AI
13 June 2024
Big Pharma
Roche fires lawsuit at Sinocare unit over blood glucose test strip patents
6 June 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

Chinese biotech takes out US rival’s nucleic acid patent at PTAB
Attorney v examiner: Navigating patenting's AI tools ‘arms race’
Lewis Roca promotes tech expert to managing partner
Panitch Schwarze brings in molecular biologist
US targets ‘product hopping’ with biologic litigation curbs
UPC confirms validity of Edwards Lifesciences heart valve tech patent
ITC concludes row over biotech lab equipment between US and German rivals
USPTO clarifies AI's role in patent eligibility