Category Archives: Obviousness

OSI v. Apotex – Christmas in October!

Posted on October 11, 2019 by Warren Woessner

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

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 , , , , , , | 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 , , , , , | 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 , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment