article thumbnail

Determination of the closest prior art in the inventiveness examination of Chinese invention patents

JD Supra Law

In the practice of patent examination in China, to determine whether an invention has prominent substantive features is to determine, to the person skilled in the art, whether the claimed invention is non-obvious as compared with the prior art. By: Linda Liu & Partners

article thumbnail

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Ruling of Swearing Behind a Prior Art Reference

Intellectual Property Law Blog

Patent 7,736,355 (“the ’355 patent”) does not qualify as prior art to related U.S. Patents 8,048,032, RE45,380, RE45,776, RE45,760, and RE47,379 (collectively, “the challenged patents”) under pre-AIA’s first-to-invent provisions. Medtronic argued that the Board erred in identifying the intended purpose of the claimed invention.

Art 147
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

AI-Assisted Inventions: Are They Patentable? Who is the Inventor?

Intellectual Property Law Blog

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) may change how we invent: many envision a collaborative approach between human inventors and AI systems that develop novel solutions to problems together. Such AI-assisted inventions present a new set of legal issues under patent law. On February 13, 2024, the U.S. 101 and 115.

Inventor 130
article thumbnail

AI-Assisted Inventions: Is There a Duty to Disclose the Use of AI?

Intellectual Property Law Blog

patent application has a duty to disclose to the USPTO all information which is materially relevant in assessing the patentability of the invention. With the advent of such AI-assisted inventions, the USPTO is rethinking its requirements regarding the duty of disclosure. Everyone involved in the filing and prosecution of a U.S.

Invention 130
article thumbnail

Federal Circuit Rules on Written Description Requirement and Prior Art Statements Supporting a Motivation to Combine

Intellectual Property Law Blog

February 9, 2024) addressed two issues: (1) when the written description requirement is met in the context of a claimed range that is narrower than the ranges disclosed in the patent specification, and (2) the kind of prior art disclosure language which supports a finding of a motivation to combine for an obviousness rejection. 4th 1323 (Fed.

Art 130
article thumbnail

The criteria for the novelty and inventive step of pharmaceutical selection inventions (T 1356/21)

The IPKat

The case related to the novelty and inventive step of a second medical use claim. The only distinguishing feature of the claim in view of the prior art was the specified concentration of the active substance (insulin) in the pharmaceutical formulation. Is the concentration of the substance a feature or use of the product?

Invention 119
article thumbnail

Inventive step of treating a subpopulation of patients in view of prior art reporting a positive phase 3 clinical trial (T 1437/21)

The IPKat

The prior art cited against the patent was the patentee's own press releases reporting the success of a phase III clinical trial of the drug in the broader patient population. The European patent at issue in T 1437/21 ( EP 2981271 ) related to the second medical use of a known drug (empagliflozin) in a subpopulation of patients.