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 Atif Choudhury at achoudhury@lifesciencesipreview.com

More on this story

Big Pharma

US life sciences damages averaged $33.5m between 2019-2025

18 June 2026 Despite a slowdown in US patent litigation, life sciences remains one of the most active sectors—but companies are using a wider than ever IP toolkit, says a new study.

Big Pharma

Novo Nordisk and OpenAI strike AI deal to boost drug discovery

15 April 2026 The Danish pharma giant is turning to artificial intelligence as it faces patent expiry, falling shares and intensifying competition from Eli Lilly.

Big Pharma

Part II: The race to replace semaglutide heats up

23 March 2026 With Novo Nordisk's core semaglutide patent expired in India last week, the company that built one of the most successful drugs in pharmaceutical history is already fighting on a new front. So what comes next?

More features

Cooley Asia transactions duo make rival firm move

‘Blatant imitation’: Indian court blocks copycat pharma branding

US life sciences damages averaged $33.5m between 2019-2025

Quantum and photonics tech licensing expert joins EIP

Court upholds $83m sequencing verdict and sets royalty rate

Amgen and subsidiary dealt $20m blow over rodent antibody tech

Ex-Simmons head of IP joins Carpmaels & Ransford

Moderna: BioNTech is claiming work ‘it never did’

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

More on this story

Editor's picks

Editor's picks

More features