Category Archives: Obviousness

Novartis v. Breckenridge: Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Explained

Without trying to summarize this well-written opinion by Judge Chen, I simply recommend that you store it somewhere and pull it out when you have a tricky obviousness-type double-patenting situation and want a thorough review of the doctrine. The opinion … Continue reading

Posted in Double Patenting, Obviousness | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Kumar v. Iancu – The Dangers of an Overstuffed Preamble/Note on 37 CFR Part 4.

On November 7, 2018, the Fed. Cir. issued a summary affirmance of the PTAB’s interference decision of September 6, 2016, in Kumar v. Sung (Patent Interference 14/322,039) which found that the claims of U.S. Pat. No. 8,541,422 were obvious over … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

UCB, Inc. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc. – Can a Racemic Mixture be a “Lead Compound.”

UCB v. Accord, Appeal no. 2016-2610 et al. (Fed. Cir., May 23, 2018) may be headed to the Supreme Court, which prompted me to take another look at this opinion. This was a decision in Hatch-Waxman litigation, in which a … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ex parte Galloway – Two Correlations are Better than One

Although, somehow, examiners and PTAB Judges are supposed to refrain from considering anticipation or obviousness when evaluating claim elements for the “inventive step” required for patent eligibility, that’s just not possible. The claims in Ex parte Galloway were directed to … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness, PTAB | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment