Categories
Archives
Recevie Email Updates
-
Disclaimer
This blog, Patents4Life, does not contain legal advice and is for informational purposes only. Its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship nor is it a solicitation for business. This is the personal blog of Warren Woessner and does not reflect the views of Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, or any of its attorneys or staff. To the best of his ability, the Author provides current and accurate information at the time of each post, however, readers should check for current information and accuracy.
Author Archives: Warren Woessner
Novartis v. West-Ward – Lead Compound Analysis v. Motivation to Combine
In Novartis Pharm. v. West-Ward Pharm., Appeal no. 2018-1434 (Fed. Cir., May 12, 2019), a three judge panel of Stoll, Plager and Clevenger affirmed the district court’s ruling that the claims of Novartis’ U.S. Pat. No. 8,410,131, directed to using … Continue reading
Posted in Obviousness
Tagged Lead Compound Analysis, Novartis, Obviousness, patent claims, POSA, prior art, West-Ward
Leave a comment
Is the “Blocking Patent” Doctrine Part of the Obviousness Analysis?
Last year, in a lengthy split decision, a Fed. Cir. panel affirmed the district court’s ruling that four “add-on” patents that Acorda owned were invalid as obviousness in view of a number of prior art references (Acorda Ther., Inc. v. … Continue reading
Posted in Section 103
Tagged Acorda Therapeutics, Ampyra, FDA, Hatch-Waxman, judge dyk, Judge Taranto, Merck v Teva, Roxanne Labs, Supreme Court
Leave a comment
Athena III – Should the Discovery of a Naturally-Occurring Correlation Encompass Recognition of its Practical Utility?
The origin of the idea that natural phenomena, like the law of gravity, cannot be patented, even by their discoverer, is well-settled law. In Gottschalk v. Benson, the Supreme Court stated, in dictum: “Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental … Continue reading