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
- CAFC: Jury Instructions Must Address Each Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness Raised by Patent Owner
- Massive Replication of Comments Submitted to NIST March-In Rights RFI Should Cause Concern
- Lourie Dissents from CAFC View that Heart Valve Transport was Not Infringing
- Rader’s Ruminations – Patent Eligibility II: How the Supreme Court Ignored Statute and Revived Its Innovation-Killing Two-Step
- Other Barks and Bites for Friday, March 22: French Watchdog Hits Google with €250 Million for IP Breaches; C4IP Releases First Congressional Innovation Scorecard; EPO Sees Record Number of Patent Applications