Category Archives: Obviousness

Ex Parte Patterson: Assay Based on Two “Natural Phenomena” Does Not Equal One “Inventive Concept”

According to the “Mayo/Alice” rule, if a claim is directed to a “natural phenomena” such as the relationship between the a drug’s metabolite concentration following administration of an immunosuppressive drug and the therapeutic window of efficacy of the drug, the claim … Continue reading

Posted in Alice, Appeals, Obviousness, Section 101 | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Novartis AG, LTS et al. v. Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. – Prior Judicial Opinions Don’t Bind the PTAB

After Novartis’ patents were found nonobvious by the Fed. Cir., affirming the Delaware District Court, defendant Noven filed for inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Pat. Nos. 6316023 and 6335031, on rivastigmine and an antioxidant. The PTAB found the asserted … Continue reading

Posted in Federal Court, Obviousness, Post-Grant Issues | 1 Comment

In re NuVasive, Inc. – Explain Yourself!

In re NuVasive Emphasizes the Importance of Reasoning in the Obviousness Question. Since KSR, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007), repudiated as “rigid and mandatory” the Federal Circuit “rule” for obviousness –  that the prior art must provide a teaching, suggestion or … Continue reading

Posted in Federal Court, Obviousness | 1 Comment

Vanda v. Roxane Labs. – Are Two Natural Laws Better Than One?

As you will recall, in Prometheus v. Mayo, the Supreme Court held that a claim reciting a natural law had to have other non-conventional steps to pass muster under s. 101. The natural law in Mayo was the correlation between … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Interpretation, Federal Court, Hatch-Waxman, Litigation Issues, Obviousness, Section 101 | 2 Comments