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)).
- Recapping Abitron at the High Court: The Long Arm of the…Lanham Act?
- Why the Supreme Court Should Weigh in on CMI Violations Under the DMCA
- Precooked Bacon, Artificial Intelligence Patents, and a Defense of the Common Law
- SCOTUS Kills Hope for Eligibility Certainty and Nixes Teva’s ‘Skinny Label’ Appeal
- Newman Says Moore’s Order Alleging She is Unfit for Court is ‘Riddled with Errors’
- UKIPO Issues New Trademark Guidance on NFTs, the Metaverse and Virtual Goods
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, May 26: USPTO Proposes Track Three Pilot Program for Micro Entity Patent Applicants; LeBron James Joins Taco Tuesday Trademark Battle; European Commission Releases List of Countries with Concerning IP Rights Protections
- Former Copyright Office GC Tells House IP Subcommittee His Counterpart Got It Wrong on AI Fair Use
- Clause 8: Tom Irving on Litigating the First Hatch-Waxman Case and Mentoring Thousands in the Patent Field
- IP Goes Pop! – Streamlining Copyright Disputes: The Copyright Claims Board