Replies to post #121914 on Biotech Values

[investorgold2002]

"Did TEVA really make a better version, or just change the colour?"
What has this anything to do with "obviousness" ?


"TEVA told the FDA that the product was the same wrt safety and efficacy. "
yes. What has this anything to do with "obviousness" ? This is evidence for inequitable conduct.


IMHO Obviousness would be possible
If 1974 patent had some clues that lower molecular maybe more safe.
Or if other prior art on copolymer mentions changes is toxicity with change in molecular weight to makes TEVA's findings obvious?

[investorgold2002]

"You are making an assumption that the lower MW truly is safer"
Again inequitable conduct defense. Nothing to do with obviousness.


"If I patent a blue wonder hammer, then later try to extend the term by patenting a pink version with the claim that it strikes harder, we have an issue. "

Not obviousness defense IMHO.

Obviousness would be if somewhere else in the prior art it was disclosed "change in colors may lead to higher impact"

So a finding that "hammer with pink color strikes harder" would be an obvious finding based on prior art

[investorgold2002]

exwannabe - Example cases for obviousness

http://www.patentdocs.org/2010/09/uspto-updates-obviousness-examination-guidelines.html


Why inequitable conduct is there?
http://www.patentdocs.org/2008/05/among-the-many.html

A patent by its very nature is affected by a public interest. As recognized by the Constitution, it is a special privilege designed to serve the public purpose of promoting the "Progress of Science and useful Arts." At the same time, a patent is an exception to the general rule against monopolies and to the right to access a free and open market. The far-reaching social and economic consequences of a patent, therefore, give the public a paramount interest in seeing that patent monopolies spring from backgrounds free from fraud or other inequitable conduct and that such monopolies are kept within their legitimate scope.