An analysis of US Federal Circuit decisions shows the effects of the Supreme Court's decision in KSR v. Teleflex.
References
Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co. 234 F.3d 654 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
In re Dembiczak 175 F3.d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
In re Kotzab 217 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. 550 US 398 (2007).
Wong, H.K. & Lau, D. Nat. Biotechnol. 27, 446–448 (2009).
Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd. 492 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Pharmastem Therapeutics, Inc. v. Viacell, Inc., et al. 491 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
In re Kubin __ F.3d __, No. 2008-1184 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc. 480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
In re Peterson 315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech. 184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the National Science Council, Taiwan, Republic of China (grant no. NSC 96-2414-H-075-001), Taipei Veterans General Hospital project (V98C1-190) and Committee on Chinese Medicine and Pharmacy (CCMP97-RD-117). The author would also like thank I.T. Huang, for summarizing the CAFC ruling and H.C. Lee for the statistical analysis.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Supplementary information
Supplementary Text and Figures
Supplementary Table 1 (PDF 252 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, SJ. The obviousness rejection as a barrier to biotech patent prosecution. Nat Biotechnol 27, 1125–1126 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1209-1125
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1209-1125
- Springer Nature America, Inc.
This article is cited by
-
Patent portfolios for biotech inventions
Nature Biotechnology (2013)