LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC has brought attention to the ongoing debate surrounding design patent law, particularly with respect to the Rosen-Durling test for design patent ...

I do not usually write about non-precedential Federal Circuit decisions, but I could not let the discussion of “simultaneous invention” in Columbia University v. Illumina, Inc., go without comment. As ...

May 25, 2023 - In inter partes reviews (IPRs), a petitioner may challenge the validity of issued claims as being obvious over one or more prior art references. A claim is unpatentable if it would have ...

Many inventions build on or combine previously known elements, requiring the Patent Office and courts to determine which combinations of, or improvement on, previously known elements are entitled to ...

Obviousness is one of the most challenging and amorphous issues in U.S. patent law, and one that all practitioners—litigators and patent prosecutors alike—inevitably confront on a regular basis.

Tuesday at the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices heard arguments concerning a basic tenet of patent law. In addition to being new, any invention for patent must be deemed “nonobvious” over what is ...

“Refusing to compensate these inventors with a temporary monopoly power when they have satisfied a novelty standard jades their spirits and throws our system of innovation out of balance.” Recovering ...

Ewa M Davison and Gary M Myles provide strategies for establishing non-obviousness in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical arts in light of the Supreme Court’s rejection of a rigid TSM test In ...

The judgment in Aktiebolaget Hassle v Alphapharm gives valuable guidance about the ‘obvious to try’ doctrine to the owners of Australian patents. Barry Eagar argues that the judges stressed the ...