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
- SCOTUS Kicks Patent Eligibility Cases to the Curb in Last Move of the Term
- Patent Litigation Financing: Fighting Efficient Infringement with Funding
- ‘Reasonable Efforts’ Require Care and Consistency
- CAFC Sends Centripetal Back to Drawing Board in Case with Cisco Due to Judge’s Stock
- Note to Senators: U.S. Patent Office Remains Under a Permanent Injunction
Recent Posts
- Good Faith Doctrine and NFTs – How a Bored Ape NFT Dilemma May Present Unique Copyright and Contract Issues
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, July 1: Tillis and Daines Question Google on Political Email Censorship, Third Circuit Finds No Copyright in Fireworks Communications System, and Eleventh Circuit Clarifies Likelihood of Confusion Test in Reverse Infringement Cases
- SCOTUS Kicks Patent Eligibility Cases to the Curb in Last Move of the Term
- Patent Litigation Financing: Fighting Efficient Infringement with Funding
- USPTO Report Underscores Split on State of U.S. Patent Eligibility Jurisprudence