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

Pharma

Takeda sees off UK challenge to Elvanse SPC

28 September 2026 Can a drug’s ‘inactive’ precursor qualify for a multi-million pound patent extension? The UK High Court has just delivered a ruling on Takeda's ADHD drug Elvanse, weighing regulatory precedent against a conflicting German decision.

Pharma

Mylan throws down new gauntlet in Novo Wegovy patent fight

25 September 2026 Another Wegovy patent has been drawn into the long-running dispute between Mylan and Novo Nordisk over proposed generic versions of the weight-loss drug.

Pharma

Novartis defeats Orange Book challenge but suffers EU setback

24 September 2026 An Entresto Orange Book listing has survived a challenge in the US, while two trademark disputes handed Novartis contrasting fortunes at a European court.

More features

Takeda sees off UK challenge to Elvanse SPC

Mylan throws down new gauntlet in Novo Wegovy patent fight

Novartis defeats Orange Book challenge but suffers EU setback

New UK High Court judge named as replacement for Justice Meade

US firm hires litigation pro whose clients include Pfizer, Medtronic

Behind the case: How Novartis defended its blockbuster Entresto in the UK

Benesch adds former McDermott IP practice head

Leading European patent litigator to join Carpmaels & Ransford

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

More on this story

Editor's picks

Editor's picks

More features