Category Archives: Obviousness

Novartis v. West-Ward – Lead Compound Analysis v. Motivation to Combine

Posted on May 20, 2019 by Warren Woessner

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

Novartis v. Breckenridge: Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Explained

Posted on December 10, 2018 by Warren Woessner

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 Abbvie, Breckenridge, Double Patenting, Gilead, Novartis, Obviousness | Leave a comment

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

Posted on November 9, 2018 by Warren Woessner

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 Attorney General Matt Whitaker, clopidogrel, Federal Circuit, intellectual property, Kumar v. Sung, PATB, Plavix, President Trump, USPTO | Leave a comment

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

Posted on October 16, 2018 by Warren Woessner

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 →