Skip to content

Organic Patents®

A WordPress site dedicated to Patents and Organic Chemistry

  • Home
  • About
  • Enablement
  • Obviousness
    • Cases from the CAFC & PTAB on Small-Molecule Obviousness
    • Obviousness of Chemical Processes
    • Obviousness of Stereoisomers & Purified Compounds
  • Patent Eligibility
  • DISCLAIMER
  • Boilerplate Definitions

Organic Process Patents

New Page added under Obviousness:

Obviousness of Chemical Processes

  • A “method of making” a compound may be non-obvious if the starting material or final product are themselves non-obvious.

  • In re Ohciai has been good law for 20+ years.

Share:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
This entry was posted in Case Law, Uncategorized and tagged CAFC, Case Law, In re Ochiai, Process Claims, Takeda on October 29, 2017 by David Rucando.

Post navigation

← Organic Patents now on Facebook. Pemetrexed (ALIMTA®) Patent Survives an IPR Obviousness Challenge →

Links

  • ACS-Chemistry & The Law
  • US Patent & Trademark Office
  • Patently-O
  • PatentDocs
  • PharmaPatents Blog

Recent Posts

  • SCHRÖDINGER’S POLYMORPH: WHEN A CRYSTALLINE FORM CLAIM IS OBVIOUS AND INVALID
  • NESACS Advances in Chemical Sciences Symposium
  • 10-Month Rule: Federally Funded Provisional Patent Applications
  • Inherency & Therapeutic Mechanisms: Reviewing In re Couvaras – (With No-Frills Diagrams)

Archives

Categories

  • Case Law
  • Chemistry
  • Deals
  • Education
  • Fun Facts
  • FYI
  • Interesting Patents
  • Patent Prosecution
  • SCOTUS
  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • Uncategorized
  • USPTO

Contact

david@organicpatents.com

Proudly powered by WordPress
Exit mobile version