In an earlier article, “Tips for Selecting a ‘Lead Compound’ in Compound Claim Challenges,” I introduced an approach derived by U.S. federal courts called the “lead compound analysis,” and discussed the first stage of the analysis – “Lead Selection”. This post discusses the second stage – “Lead Development”. The lead development analysis involves assessment of the efforts required for modifying the lead compound to arrive at the claimed compound. As with the case of lead selection, the lead development also involves reviewing the similarities and dissimilarities between the lead and the claimed compounds. The courts have approached this inquiry broadly as the obviousness analysis under the KSR framework (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and the Graham factors (Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)).
Recent Posts
- Former USPTO Solicitor Urges Squires Confirmation, Accuses Acting Director of Overreach
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, September 12: Novartis Loses Challenge to IRA Drug Price Negotiation Program; Lutnick Wants a Share of University IP Licensing; and EUIPO Announces First Copyright Conference
- Government Taking a Cut of University Royalties Would Threaten Bayh-Dole’s ROI
- Conservatives Appeal to Lutnick’s Inventor Roots in Urging Him to Drop ‘Patent Tax’ Proposal
- PTAB Turbulence: A Good Time to be a Patent Owner