In This Issue:
1 - Obviousness of Pharmaceuticals - Patentability Over Known, Structurally Similar Compounds
1 - Post-Issuance Options: The Benefits and Risks of Reexamination and Reissue
11 - Stanford v. Roche, the Bayh-Dole Act, and the Possibility of Unintended Consequences
15 - MBHB is...
Excerpt from "Obviousness of Pharmaceuticals..."
Ethyl, methyl, butyl…futile – the running joke in grad school. Just try a different substituent until you find an active compound – or not. But while tweaking an alkyl substituent might seem “obvious” in the lab, when it comes to patent protection of small molecules, is it necessarily obvious? When examining a patent application with claims directed to novel chemical compounds, an examiner may reject those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over structurally similar compounds in the prior art. Likewise, an accused infringer will often allege that the asserted claims to chemical compounds are “obvious” when challenging the validity of a patent. Successfully overcoming a charge of obviousness can be critical where the compound(s) in question are clinical candidates or are already highly successful commercial therapeutics. So how can you defeat those assertions?
Please see full newsletter below for more information.
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.