Tag Archives: Obviousness

OSI v. Apotex – Christmas in October!

In OSI v. Apotex, Appeal no. 2018-1925 (Fed. Cir., October 4, 2019), the panel reversed the PTAB and found that the method of treatment claims in U.S. Pat. No. 6,900,221 were not obvious over a primary reference taken with each … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness, Section 103 | Tagged , | Leave a comment

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 , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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

Yeda Res. and Dev. v. Mylan – “We don’t need no Stinkin’ Prior Art”

The quote is from “Treasure of the Sierra Madre” when a bandido leader is trying to convince Bogart that his gang are Federales, and Bogie asks to see their badges. In the context of Yeda Res. and Dev. v. Mylan, … Continue reading

Posted in Prior Art | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment