New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
Only a true invention can be patented; a patent claim to an invention is not valid if the invention was obvious. Assessing obviousness can be thought of as bridging the gap between two cliffs: on one side is the existing...more
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms USA, Inc. - Declining to reconsider its panel decision holding that a pharmaceutical was obvious where a skilled artisan would have altered the lead prior art compound in the...more
On October 20, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued an order denying the petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc filed in Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc. While the order itself may not be...more
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms USA, Inc. - Addressing the obviousness of a claimed compound where a person of skill would need to make only minor changes to a lead compound to arrive at the claimed invention,...more
In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that BMS’s Baraclude® patent is invalid as obvious. In so doing, the court gave little weight to...more
On June 12, 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion affirming the obviousness of a patent claim directed to a drug molecule. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., ___...more