Relevant bibliographies by topics / Obviousness (Patent law)

Contents

  1. Journal articles
  2. Dissertations / Theses
  3. Books
  4. Book chapters

Academic literature on the topic 'Obviousness (Patent law)'

Author: Grafiati
Published: 4 June 2021
Last updated: 15 February 2022

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles

Select a source type:

Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'Obviousness (Patent law).'

Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.

You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.

Journal articles on the topic "Obviousness (Patent law)"

1

Hwang, Autumn J. S., and J. Peter Fasse. "Current views on obviousness under US patent law." Industrial Biotechnology 6, no. 5 (October 2010): 264–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/ind.2010.6.264.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
2

Sherman, Brad. "Patent Law in a Time of Change: Non-Obviousness and Biotechnology." Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 10, no. 2 (1990): 278–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ojls/10.2.278.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
3

Fernández, Fernando. "THE NON-OBVIOUSNESS REQUIREMENT IN THE CHILEAN PATENT LAW: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT." Revista chilena de derecho 38, no. 3 (December 2011): 487–4510. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/s0718-34372011000300004.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
4

Gendloff, Elie H. "The Evolving Obviousness Standard for Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals in U.S. Patent Law." Biotechnology Law Report 29, no. 4 (August 2010): 381–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/blr.2010.9945.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
5

Rose, Simone A. "Semiconductor Chips, Genes, and Stem Cells: New Wine for New Bottles?" American Journal of Law & Medicine 38, no. 1 (March 2012): 113–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009885881203800102.

Full text
Abstract:
This Article analogizes early semiconductor technology and its surrounding economics with isolated genes, stem cells, and related bioproducts, and their surrounding economics, to make the case for sui generis (of its own class) intellectual property protection for isolated bioproducts. Just as early semiconductors failed to meet the patent social bargain requiring novelty and non-obviousness in the 1980s, isolated genes and stem cells currently fail to meet the patent bargain requirements of non-obviousness and eligible subject matter that entitle them to traditional intellectual property protection. Like early semiconductor chip designs, nevertheless, the high cost of upstream bioproduct research and development, coupled with the need to sustain continued economic growth of the biotechnology industry, mandates that Congress provide some level of exclusive rights to ensure continued funding for this research. Sui generis intellectual property protection for isolated bioproducts would preserve the incentive to continue innovation in the field. As illustrated by the semiconductor industry, however, such sui generis protection for this technology must include limitations that address the need to provide an appropriate level of public access to facilitate downstream product development and enrich the public domain.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
6

Holman, Christopher M. "The Federal Circuit's Ongoing Expansion of Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Creates Patent Prosecution Pitfalls." Biotechnology Law Report 33, no. 3 (June 2014): 94–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/blr.2014.9984.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
7

Hemphill, Thomas A. "The telecommunication and information industries: US patent policy and the criterion of non-obviousness." Telematics and Informatics 26, no. 1 (February 2009): 2–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2007.10.001.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
8

Burdon, Michael, James Armstrong, Catherine Katzka, and Jade MacIntyre. "House of Lords Provides Guidance on the Law of Obviousness in Patent Actions; Increased Opportunities to Obtain Supplementary Protection Certificates for Combinations of Active Ingredients; Patent for DNA and Protein Sequence Invalid Due to Lack of Industrial Application." Journal of Generic Medicines: The Business Journal for the Generic Medicines Sector 6, no. 1 (November 2008): 67–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jgm.2008.29.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
9

Feit, Irving N. "{BLR 2293} Obviousness - Sequence Patents." Biotechnology Law Report 15, no. 4 (July 1996): 569–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/blr.1996.15.569.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
10

Novoselova, Ludmila A., and Arina S. Vorozhevich. "EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO THE GENE ENGINEERING’S RESULTS: RUSSIAN AND FOREIGN EXPERIENCE." Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Pravo, no. 39 (2021): 174–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.17223/22253513/39/14.

Full text
Abstract:
Well-balanced patent regulation is an important factor in the effective development of the biotechnology market. The possibility of establishing exclusive rights over the results of genetic research, including isolated genes and gene-based diagnostics, has been the subject of heated debate all over the world. Nevertheless, a unified approach to regulating these matters has not yet emerged. For example, in the US and India, patenting of isolated natural genes and diagnostic methods based on them is not permitted at all. Only synthetic genes and modified sequences are patentable. The EU and the UK generally allow such objects to be patented, but impose additional requirements. In China, diagnostic methods are generally not considered to be patentable, yet particular substances and instruments used for diagnosis may be recognised as protectable subjects. A cautious approach to the admissibility of patent protection for the results of genetic research is reflected, for example, in the requirement to provide additional data in order to prove that the solutions do meet the criteria of industrial applicability and non-obviousness. In countries which allow the patenting of a gene sequence (or a partial gene sequence with the structure identical to that of a naturally occurring one) as a substance, the law nevertheless mandates that the industrial application of such a sequence must be clearly indicated; it is also required that the patent application contains the information on the field for which the industrial application is specifically described. An unambiguous approach to biotechnology patenting has not yet emerged in the Russian legal sphere. Russian Civil Code does not directly prohibit the patenting of genes, gene-based therapies and diagnostics. Basic principles and approaches to the patenting of genetic engi-neering results and the protection of exclusive rights to them, including: the criteria for distin-guishing patentable and unpatentable results of genetic research, the limits of exclusive rights and the conditions for a compulsory license issuance have not yet been fully developed and introduced into the Russian legal framework and regulatory enforcement practice. The regulation is carried out at the level of by-laws: in accordance with the Rospatent Guidelines for Examination of Applications for Inventions, the approach used in the assess-ment of inventions relating to the field of biotechnology is the same as the one employed for inventions relating to other fields of science and technology. Given the potential importance of the biotechnology for the further progress in science and technology, these matters should be regulated at the Civil Code level. We propose that a broad public debate be held concerning 1) the principles for the regulation of these matters 2) the possibility of patenting, and 3) the extent of the exclusive rights of rightholders.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
More sources

Dissertations / Theses on the topic "Obviousness (Patent law)"

1

Louis, Axelle. "L’évolution contemporaine de la notion de brevetabilité : étude en droit français et européen." Thesis, Aix-Marseille, 2014. http://www.theses.fr/2014AIXM1010.

Full text
Abstract:
L'impressionnante augmentation du nombre de dépôts de brevets, l'arrivée de nouvelles technologies mais également les nombreuses contestations du système des brevets invitent à se pencher sur la façon dont la notion de brevetabilité a su faire face à l'évolution des techniques et des pratiques. La présente étude propose d'analyser l'évolution contemporaine de la notion de brevetabilité en observant d'abord l'élargissement du domaine de la brevetabilité, avant de s'intéresser à l'assouplissement des conditions de brevetabilité. Les vecteurs de cette évolution vers une plus grande protection sont la lacune législative en matière de définition de l'invention et le recul successif des exclusions à la brevetabilité. Il ressort en outre de l'étude que le critère d'application industrielle doit être vu comme participant de la nature de l'invention, et non comme une condition de brevetabilité. Il apparaît également qu'en réaction à la complexité des nouvelles technologies et à la pression des acteurs économiques, les conditions de nouveauté et d'activité inventive se voient particulièrement assouplies. L'étude conclut a un abaissement du seuil de brevetabilité et à la prolifération de brevets de mauvaises qualité ayant un impact négatif sur l'innovation
The impressive increase of patent applications, the advent of new technologies but also the numerous challenges that the patent system has to face invite to look at the way the notion of patentability copes with the evolution of art and practices. The present study analyses the evolution of the notion of patentability by observing at first the widening of patentability field, before looking at the softening.of patentability criteria. The means of this evolution toward a wider protection are the absence of any legal definition of invention and the successive backward movement of patentability exclusions. It is shown that industrial application must be seen as part of the ivention definition and not as a criterion. It also appears that in reaction to the complexification of technologies and the pressure of economic actors, novelty and non-obviousness criteria have been largely softened. The conclusion of the study is that the decrease of the patentability threshold and the increase of bad quality patents have a negative impact on innovation
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
2

Dhenne, Mathieu. "Technique et droit des brevets." Thesis, Paris 2, 2013. http://www.theses.fr/2013PA020041.

Full text
Abstract:
Le droit des brevets a pour objet l’appropriation d’enseignements techniques nouveaux afin d’encourager le développement de la recherche dans le domaine de la technique. Ainsi, la technicité constitue une condition fondamentale de l’apparition du droit de brevet. Cependant, la définition de ce qu’est la technique en droit des brevets exige, au préalable, de déterminer quelle est sa fonction normative. Cette fonction varie selon la conception de la propriété retenue. L’approche matérialiste de la propriété en fait une limite à l’appropriation tandis que l’approche idéaliste en fait un critère d’appropriation de la chose. Selon la première approche, la propriété ne concerne que des choses corporelles et des droits. L’invention est alors confondue avec une chose corporelle dont elle autorise la réalisation. La technicité est le critère de la corporéité, c’est une limite à l’appropriation. Cette approche se traduit par l’établissement d’un domaine de la brevetabilité défini par une énumération des choses non appropriables et par une appréciation de la technicité au niveau d’une chose corporelle que la réalisation de l’invention permet. Selon la seconde approche, qui emporte notre conviction, la propriété peut porter sur des choses corporelles et sur des choses incorporelles. La technicité constitue un critère de l’appropriation. Cette approche se traduit par la suppression du domaine de la brevetabilité et par une appréciation de la technicité au niveau de la chose incorporelle de l’invention
The object of patent law is the appropriation of novel technical teachings in order to support technological development. Thus, the technicality is a fundamental condition of the patent right appearance. However, the definition of what technique is in patent law demands, at first, to fix what its normative function is. This function varies depending on the property conception retained. The materialist approach of property views it as a limit to appropriation, while the idealist views it as a criterion of appropriation.According to the first approach, the property only concerns corporal things and rights. Then the invention is mixed up with a corporal thing that its realization allowed. The technicality is the criterion of corporality, it is a limit to the appropriation. This approach is realized by the establishment of the domain of patentability, which is defined by a list of objects that are not appropriable and by the assessment of the technicality of the invention at the latest stage of realization the invention allows.According to the second approach, which we are defending, the property can concern either corporal or incorporal things. Then the invention is an incorporal thing. The technicality is a criterion of the appropriation. This approach is realized by the suppression of the domain of patentability and by the assessment of the technicality of the invention at the non-tangible stage
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
3

Wu, Chin-fa, and 吳進發. "A Comparative Study of Non-Obviousness Requirement in Patent Law." Thesis, 2006. http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/83001801232858720878.

Full text
Abstract:
碩士
國立中興大學
科技法律研究所
94
The non-obviousness is a condition of patentability. The requirement of the non-obviousness means that an invention shall not be granted if one who has ordinary skills in the pertinent art can easily accomplish it and if it utilizes technology or knowledge known prior to applying for patent. However, how to assess the non-obviousness, it refers to the principles and factors defined by the Supreme Court of United States of America in a case of Graham v. Deere in 1966.The European Patent Office adopts the “problem-solution approach” to assess the non-obviousness. The thesis attempts to inquire into their respective advantages, the principles, the factors, and comparison on their differences. Then, we review the situation of Taiwan and examine the principles and the factors of the advanced countries for the reflection on Taiwan’s non-obviousness. In the paper, the non-obviousness requirement of determination in Taiwan is quite similar to European and American law, no matter the factors or the principles. On the perspective of the factors, it may be necessary to add “the differences between the claims and the prior art” in order to reform the patent practice to avoid the comparison of differences. On the factor of level of ordinary skill in the art, we should consider to approach the concept of “teamwork” according to the European Patent Convention. To resolve the meaning of “obvious” perspective, it refers to the standard of the European Patent Convention examination that place “obvious” factor as the first consideration and “ suggestion test ” as the second, thus the “indicators” as the last. On the perspective of “secondary considerations”, they are useful in case of doubt about the non-obviousness.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
4

Cheng, Yue-teng, and 鄭煜騰. "A Study on Non-obviousness of Chemical Invention in US Patent Law." Thesis, 2012. http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/18731789152998406995.

Full text
Abstract:
碩士
世新大學
法律學研究所(含碩專班)
100
The present master thesis relates to an approach to non-obviousness of chemical invention. This thesis basically can be divided into two sections, in which the front half section describes non-obviousness as one of patentable elements of US patent system, inventive step requirement of Taiwan patent system and the comparison between the two, and the rear half section describes non-obviousness of chemical invention of US patent system, inventive step requirement of pharmaceuticals of Taiwan patent system and the comparison between the two. Also, a court judgment of chemical invention in Taiwan IP court was selected as an example to be determined by “obvious to try” rationale of MPEP §2143 used by office personnel in USPTO and inventive step requirement of patent substantive examination guidelines used by office personnel in TIPO.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
5

Chi-Yuan, Yang also known as Eric Young, and 楊啟元. "A Study on the Patent Law Requirement of Non-Obviousness or Inventive-Step." Thesis, 2006. http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/50439243248615841644.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
6

Kai-PingWang and 王楷評. "Simple Invention and Its Judgement on the Requirement of Non-obviousness in the Patent Law." Thesis, 2014. http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/61734988318099246924.

Full text
Abstract:
碩士
國立成功大學
法律學系
102
When a invention obtains the patent , it is new and useful , and has inventive step. The requirement of inventive step is the core of the patent right . And judgement on obviousness must be interpreted objectively. Simple invention is the life language and not the legal conception . When it has patentability , as complex invention, it obtains a patent right. However, the patent examiner easily has obvious feeling for simple invention. In fact , he has hindsight . According to judicial practice of simple invention , we would know that the judges realize on issue of hindsight . However, they probably have hindsight on judgment of inventive step. Therefore, we would refer to foreign legal to solve the probable problem which is judgment of obviousness in the judicial practice of our country. Especially we should attach importance to avoid hindsight of the judgment on the requirement of non-obviousness of simple invention.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
7

Engle, Sarah Noelle. "An "Obvious" Proposal - Using An Industry Sensitive Doctrine of Obviousness to Govern the Scope of Gene Patents After Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO." Thesis, 2011. http://hdl.handle.net/1807/30583.

Full text
Abstract:
Currently there are approximately 20,000 valid gene patents in the United States. The debate regarding biotechnology and patent law has reached a pinnacle over the patentability of genes. Biotech is fighting a patentability war on two fronts. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit cannot agree regarding the touchstone of patentability for genes; two branches of the Executive are at odds over whether gene sequences qualify under 35 U.S.C. §101. Recent U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit jurisprudence also undermine the patentability of genes as obvious. This thesis argues that the patentable subject matter debate fails to adequately address the goals of patent policy in fostering innovation. Looking to Canadian and U.K. jurisprudence, it is possible to hone an approach to obviousness that addresses the ethical and research concerns in the patentable subject matter debate while fostering investment and patent protection for non-obvious biotech discoveries.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
8

Hashim, Mohamed. "Is it Obvious? A Review and Critique of the Non-obviousness Patent Requirement." Thesis, 2012. http://hdl.handle.net/1807/33237.

Full text
Abstract:
A patent is often characterized as a bargain between an inventor and society. Generally, for a patent to be considered valid, an invention must satisfy three broad criteria: it must be new, useful, and non-obvious. This paper focuses on the requirement of non-obviousness. It explores the criterion from inception to its current state and suggests a potential refinement. A multi-jurisdictional snap-shot is presented focusing on the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States, and Canada. It is submitted that the non-obvious prerequisite contains a problematic level of uncertainty. The law of obviousness lacks a baseline standard. To achieve certainty, it is suggested that the law adopt the principles pertaining to patenting combinations and aggregates. Ultimately the law of patents, inclusive of the doctrine of obviousness, must be fashioned and administered in a manner that respects the quid pro quo that has guided the law for many years.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
9

Bernardin, Steve. "Brevets : rédaction et interprétation des revendications, validité et contrefaçon." Thèse, 2012. http://hdl.handle.net/1866/9188.

Full text
Abstract:
Ce mémoire traite des brevets d'invention. Le premier volet dresse un portrait global de l'institution juridique du brevet, tout en en rappelant sommairement les fondements économique et philosophique. Après une brève présentation des conditions préalables à sa délivrance, nous discutons des composantes matérielles du brevet, soit la description de l’invention et les revendications. Une attention particulière est portée à la rédaction ainsi qu'à l'interprétation des revendications. Nous traitons ainsi de deux types de revendications spécialisées qui se sont développés avec l'usage, respectivement les revendications de type Jepson et Markush, pour ensuite recenser les principes d'interprétation des revendications que les tribunaux ont établis. Le deuxième volet traite de la validité et de la contrefaçon de brevet. Sur la question de la validité, nous abordons les principaux motifs pouvant entraîner l'invalidité du brevet, soit: l’ambiguïté, l'insuffisance de la divulgation, le double brevet, l'absence de nouveauté, l'évidence et l'absence d'utilité. Enfin, sur la question de la contrefaçon, nous examinons les circonstances dans lesquelles les actes commis par les tiers portent atteinte au monopole du titulaire de brevet. Pour ce faire, nous nous attardons à la portée des droits exclusifs qui sont reconnus à ce dernier. Tant en ce qui a trait à la validité qu'à la contrefaçon, nous recourons à des illustrations jurisprudentielles permettant de constater les incidences litigieuses afférentes, d'une part, aux motifs d'invalidité et, d'autre part, aux actes de contrefaçon.
This thesis pertains to patent law. The first part of the study is an overview of patents, where both economic and philosophical justifications for this legal regime are shortly addressed. After reviewing the requirements for the grant of a patent, we turn our attention to the main sections of a patent, namely the description of the invention and the claims. We then proceed to a thorough analysis of both the writing and construction of patent claims. More specifically, Jepson and Markush claims command our attention, having emerged as widespread methods for writing patent claims. Moreover, principles of claim construction, as devised by courts in the context of litigation, are also examined. The second part of this study pertains to patent validity and infringement. Regarding validity, we discuss a number of irregularities that may be cause for the invalidity of a patent, namely: ambiguity, insufficiency of the disclosure, double patenting, anticipation, obviousness and lack of utility. Lastly, with respect to infringement, we consider the circumstances from which it may arise, based on the actions of a third party alleged to be in violation of the patentee’s monopoly. This is carried by way of appraising the extent of said patentee's exclusive rights. With respect to both validity and infringement, we discuss case law pertaining, in a first instance, to validity issues and, in a second instance, to infringement matters.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Books on the topic "Obviousness (Patent law)"

1

Patent obviousness in the wake of KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. Chicago: American Bar Association, 2010.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
2

Bouchard, Ron A. What is the right approach of obviousness in patent litigation under Canada's pharmaceutical linkage relationships: To test or not to test? 2006.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Book chapters on the topic "Obviousness (Patent law)"

1

Wegner, Harold C. "Obviousness." In Patent Law in Biotechnology, Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals, 119–55. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1992. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-21958-2_15.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
2

Wegner, Harold C. "Method of Making Obviousness Issues." In Patent Law in Biotechnology, Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals, 190–203. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1992. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-21958-2_19.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
3

Wegner, Harold C. "Method of Use Claim Obviousness Issues." In Patent Law in Biotechnology, Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals, 177–89. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1992. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-21958-2_18.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
4

Bently, L., B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, and P. Johnson. "19. Inventive step." In Intellectual Property Law. Oxford University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0019.

Full text
Abstract:
This chapter examines the requirement that an invention is patentable if it involves an ‘inventive step’ or ‘non-obviousness’, that is, the invention is not obvious to a person skilled in the art, and the difficulty of deciding whether an invention is obvious (non-inventive) or non-obvious (inventive). It first considers the approach used by the European Patent Office to deal with the obviousness of a patent and compares it with that in the UK. It then explains the concept of the state of the art in an obviousness examination before concluding with an assessment of the way in which the inventive step has been addressed in a number of different circumstances.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
5

Brown, Abbe, Smita Kheria, Jane Cornwell, and Marta Iljadica. "12. The power of a patent." In Contemporary Intellectual Property, 485–522. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198799801.003.0012.

Full text
Abstract:
This chapter deals with who is entitled to be a patentee, the rights that a patentee enjoys (which are some of the strongest within intellectual property law), the circumstances in which infringement actions might be brought, the defences that are available, and some points on exploitation practices. A key thread is the construction and interpretation of the patent and the inextricable link between the power conferred by the patent and questions of novelty and obviousness. This chapter also looks at sufficiency, the circumstances in which a patent may be revoked, and the risk of a claim for revocation of the patent.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
You might also be interested in the extended bibliographies on the topic 'Obviousness (Patent law)' for particular source types:
Journal articles
We offer discounts on all premium plans for authors whose works are included in thematic literature selections. Contact us to get a unique promo code!

To the bibliography