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
- How French and California Contract Law Would Interpret SEP Patent Owner Obligations Under the ETSI Licensing Declaration
- NYIPLA Tells Supremes IP Lawyers Need Attorney-Client Privilege for Dual-Purpose Communications
- A Guide to Disclosures in Delaware Patent Litigation in the Face of Pending Federal Circuit Review
- CAFC Expressly States Patentee Disclaimers During IPR are Not Binding on the PTAB’s Patentability Analysis
- Disruptive Startups Cannot Survive in a Post-AIA Patent Landscape
Recent Posts
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, December 2: Court of Federal Claims Rules CDC Patents Breached Gilead Agreements; Eleventh Circuit Affirms Trademark Win for Viacom; and Delaware Litigation Funding Case Heats Up at CAFC
- Former Commerce, USPTO Heads Push for U.S. to Lead Opposition to Extending WTO’s COVID IP Waiver
- Patent Experts Urge Kanter to Reject Calls to Scrap Avanci Business Review Letter
- Answering the Question, ‘What is the Conservative View of Patent Rights?’
- USPTO, Copyright Office Joint Study on NFTs Could Help Dispel Confusion About IP Ownership in Media Content Underlying Digital Assets