We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.


Refine your search

Content type

77 results found


McDermott Will & Emery | USA | 30 May 2012

In court, secondary considerations must be considered before making an obviousness determination

In reversing a district court’s finding of obviousness, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that there is no burden-shifting framework for determining obviousness and that a fact-finder must consider secondary considerations before making an obviousness determination.


Venable LLP | USA | 8 Sep 2011

The Federal Circuit’s evolving obviousness analysis

The Federal Circuit continues to take some of the bite out of the Supreme Court’s KSR decision (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)) that broadened the basis for determining that patent claims are obvious by, among other things, avoiding overly rigorous application of the TSM (teaching, suggestion, motivation) test.


Lathrop Gage LLP | USA | 6 Jul 2011

CAFC invalidates claims covering specified dose range as obvious

On June 22, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) upheld a summary judgment invalidating two claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,211,954 (“the ‘954 patent”), which covers a pharmaceutical formulation comprising particular doses of a sleep-inducing agent.

Previous page 1 2 3 ...