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

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

The Quintara decision: Defining trade secrets in federal cases

To disclose or not: Pharma patents face new AI reality

Trade secrets go global: How brand owners face a high-stakes battlefront

Killing the golden goose of US drug innovation (Part II): Drug pricing myths

Former pharma GC brings in-house perspective to McGuireWoods

Sandoz eyes US biosimilar launch as Regeneron settles

Killing the golden goose of US drug innovation (Part I): Follow the money

Buchalter brings in new partner to head up medtech

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

More on this story

Editor's picks

Editor's picks

More features