non-obviousness
4 cases — ← All topics
| Case | Title | Lower Court | Docketed | Status | Flags | Tags | Question Presented |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24-1132 | Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc. | Federal Circuit | 2025-05-02 | Denied | federal-circuit non-obviousness obviousness patent-law pharmaceutical-innovation secondary-considerations | Whether, as this Court has held, the objective indicia of non-obviousness should be analyzed flexibly to combat hindsight bias or instead subject to t… | |
| 20-1258 | Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., et al. v. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Inc. | Federal Circuit | 2021-03-11 | Denied | conception conception-standard federal-circuit-rule inventorship-correction joint-inventorship non-obviousness novelty patent-law prior-art | Whether the Federal Circuit erred in adopting a bright-line rule that the novelty and non-obviousness of an invention over alleged contributions that … | |
| 18-1418 | Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., et al. v. Akorn, Inc. | Federal Circuit | 2019-05-13 | Denied | 35-usc-144 federal-circuit mandate non-obviousness obviousness-standard opinion patent-appeal patent-appeals patent-law patent-trial-and-appeal-board rule-36 statutory-interpretation | 1. Whether 35 U.S.C. § 144's directive that the Federal Circuit "shall issue … its mandate and opinion" in all appeals from the Patent and Trademark O… | |
| 18-823 | ZUP, LLC v. Nash Manufacturing, Inc. | Federal Circuit | 2018-12-28 | Denied | Amici (1)Response Waived | invention invention-evaluation legal-analysis long-felt-need non-obviousness obviousness obviousness-standard patent patent-invalidity patent-law prima-facie prior-art rebuttal secondary-considerations | Whether evidence of "secondary considerations" (e.g., a long-felt, but unresolved, need for the patented invention) is less important, functioning at … |