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)).
Litigation
- USPTO Responds to Patent Bar Gender Gap Inquiry, Mulls Changes to Registration Process
- US Inventor Backs SCOTUS Petition to Clarify Claim Construction Principles
- Ericsson Wins Anti-Interference Injunction Against Samsung in Texas FRAND Case
- Supreme Court Will Review Doctrine of Assignor Estoppel
- Patent Filings Roundup: IP Edge End-of-Year Filing Spree, WSOU Ends Year as Top Single-Entity Filer; AC Competitors Go to War Over a Cool Million
Recent Posts
- The Right Choice: IP Stakeholders Emphasize Practical Experience, Strong IP Advocacy in Next USPTO Head
- USPTO Responds to Patent Bar Gender Gap Inquiry, Mulls Changes to Registration Process
- How Patents Enable Mavericks and Challenge Incumbents
- ipAwarenessAssessment: Inventors and Business Owners Should Start Their IP Journey with this USPTO-NIST Tool
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, January 22: Iancu and Peter Step Down from USPTO, CJEU Asked Whether Preliminary Injunction Standard Burdens Patent Owners, SCOTUS Denial Leaves Invalidation of Idenix Genus Patent Claims Untouched