Remove 2007 Remove Invention Remove Litigation Remove Patent Prosecution
article thumbnail

Vanda Seeks Supreme Court Review on Lower Standard for Obviousness

Patently-O

398 (2007). KSR ‘s language is built on longstanding precedent that an invention cannot be considered obvious if, at the time it was made, it would not have been “perfectly plain” or “immediately recognizable” to one skilled in the art. The Supreme Court has not addressed obviousness standards since its 2007 decision in KSR.

Art 81
article thumbnail

EFTA-India Free Trade Agreement and Patents Rules Amendment: Compromising Public Accountability and Transparency in the Indian Patent System

SpicyIP

Section 8 and the Transparency of Indian Patent System According to Section 8 of the Indian Patents Act , patent applicants must regularly disclose to the patent office any same or substantially similar foreign applications corresponding to their patent applications for Indian inventions, and any updates relevant to their prosecution.

Patent 72
article thumbnail

WIPIP, Concurrent Session #1, Design

43(B)log

When Design Within Reach started, it said in its 2007 10K: “our competitors believe they have exclusive rights” in some of their proudcts, including some of their best selling items, which were reproductions. and design patents were hard to get/not as valuable at the time. Herman Miller litigated even against “Eames style.”

Designs 59