Skip to main content

Obviousness and Novelty - Patent Invalidity

Obviousness and novelty are important concepts in patent law that can be used as grounds for invalidating a patent. When a patent is granted, it implies that the invention is novel, non-obvious, and meets other patentability requirements. However, if it is later proven that the invention lacks novelty or is obvious, the patent may be invalidated.

1. Novelty: Novelty refers to the requirement that an invention must be new and not publicly disclosed before the filing date of the patent application. If the invention was previously known or disclosed to the public in any form, such as in prior patents, published articles, or public demonstrations, it may lack novelty, and the patent could be invalidated on those grounds.

2. Obviousness: Obviousness, on the other hand, refers to the requirement that an invention must not be obvious to a person skilled in the relevant field of technology at the time of filing the patent application. If the invention is merely a combination of existing elements or steps that would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the field, it may be deemed obvious, and the patent could be invalidated on those grounds.

The process of challenging the novelty or obviousness of a patent is often carried out through a post-grant procedure known as "patent invalidation" or "patent invalidity" proceedings. Depending on the jurisdiction, the procedures and names may vary (e.g., in the United States, it is often referred to as "patent reexamination" or "inter partes review").

In these proceedings, interested parties can present evidence and arguments to demonstrate that the patent should not have been granted in the first place due to lack of novelty, obviousness, or other reasons. The burden of proof generally falls on the party seeking to invalidate the patent. The proceedings may involve examination of prior art (previous patents, publications, or other public disclosures) and expert testimonies to support the claims of lack of novelty or obviousness.

If a patent is successfully invalidated due to lack of novelty or obviousness, it means that the patent is no longer legally enforceable, and the claimed invention is no longer protected by the patent.

It's important to note that patent law and the procedures for challenging patents can vary significantly from one country to another. If you are considering challenging the validity of a patent or need legal advice regarding patent matters, it is advisable to consult with a qualified patent attorney familiar with the specific jurisdiction's laws and regulations.

In-validity challenges:

In the context of patents, a "validity challenge" refers to a legal proceeding or action in which a party seeks to challenge the validity of an existing patent. The purpose of a validity challenge is to contest the enforceability of the patent by demonstrating that it should not have been granted or that it does not meet the requirements for patentability.

Validity challenges can occur through various legal mechanisms and procedures, depending on the jurisdiction and the specific laws in place. Some common ways in which patents may be challenged for validity include:

1. Post-Grant Review: In some countries, including the United States, there are post-grant review processes that allow third parties to challenge the validity of a patent after it has been granted. For example, in the U.S., an inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) can be initiated before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

2. Opposition Proceedings: In certain jurisdictions, such as Europe, opposition proceedings can be initiated by third parties within a specific timeframe after the patent has been granted. During opposition, the validity of the patent is examined by the patent office.

3. Lawsuit or Litigation: Parties can challenge the validity of a patent through a lawsuit in court. In such cases, the party challenging the patent (the defendant) may raise invalidity defenses in response to an infringement lawsuit brought by the patent holder (the plaintiff).

The grounds for challenging the validity of a patent are typically based on specific legal requirements for patentability. The most common grounds include:

- Lack of Novelty: Demonstrating that the claimed invention was already known or publicly disclosed before the patent filing date.

- Obviousness: Showing that the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person skilled in the relevant field of technology at the time of filing.

- Lack of Inventive Step: Similar to obviousness, asserting that the invention does not involve an inventive step beyond what is already known.

- Lack of Enablement: Arguing that the patent specification does not sufficiently describe how to make and use the invention.

- Lack of Written Description: Asserting that the patent specification does not adequately describe the claimed invention.

- Non-Patentable Subject Matter: Arguing that the invention falls into excluded categories of subject matter, such as abstract ideas or natural phenomena.

The outcome of a validity challenge can have significant implications for the patent holder and the wider industry. If the patent is found to be invalid, it may be revoked, rendering the claimed invention no longer protected by patent rights. On the other hand, if the patent is upheld as valid, it will remain enforceable for the duration of its term, and the patent holder can continue to exercise their exclusive rights granted by the patent.

It's important to remember that validity challenges involve complex legal and technical considerations. Parties seeking to challenge a patent's validity or defend against such challenges typically require the expertise of qualified patent attorneys or legal professionals with experience in patent law.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Pharma Companies HR contact information

Dear viewers of my blog, I am happy to share the HR contact details of Pharmaceutical companies. Contact Details Of Pharma HRs : Zaydus cadila-Goa gajendravernekar@zayduscadila.com 09623458512/08326615143 Teva-Goa Maryann.Braganza@teva.co.in sanjay.pandit@teva.co.in 0832 6685538 Glenmark-Goa Vittal hebbalkar hr executivr - 9923476869 anupbannatti@glenmark-generics.com 09604151586 Watson-Goa Jyosna.bagule@watsonpharm.co.in runa.divkar@watsonpharm.co.in goa@watsonpharm.co.in 0832 6690666/777 Unichem Labs-Goa abhiram.panshikar@unichemlabs.com R&D  suraj.jadhav@unichemlabs.com vikas.parkar@unichemlabs.com Indico-Goa goahplc@Indoco.com varun.keny@indoco.com anand.ingole@Indoco.com 0832 6624109 Encube-Goa hr@encubeethicals.com nidhi.b@encubeethicals.com 8322392223 Torrent pharma-Ahmdabad mayurdesai@torrentpharma.com 9879603921/22/23/24 Emcure-pune RPKulkarni@emcure.co.in           Kishor.Mule@emcur...

Novo Nordisk settles with 2 Florida venders of compounded (Semaglutide)Ozempic:

Novo Nordisk settles with 2 Florida venders of compounded Ozempic: Novo Nordisk has arrived at private settlements with two Florida merchants of intensified forms of the uber blockbuster semaglutide therapies Ozempic and Wegovy, the organization said on Friday. In June of last year, Novo recorded brand name encroachment claims against five dealers of knockoff renditions of the GLP-1 medications, which have seen soaring interest to battle weight reduction. Ekzotica Corp's. Restorative Laser Experts Drug Spa in Miami and Effinger Wellbeing's Nuvida Rx Weight reduction in Tallahassee are the initial two organizations to have settled their cases. As indicated by long-lasting directive orders, the dealers will quit utilizing Novo reserve and have consented to reveal for a considerable length of time that intensified variants of the medications have not gone through the security and viability norms expected by the FDA for supported drugs. "The litigants' unlawful showcasing ...

Hypertension-An Overview

INTRODUCTION: Systemic arterial hypertension is one of the strongest known modifiable risk factors for ischaemic heart disease, stroke, renal failure and heart failure. It remains poorly treated. As an asymptomatic disorder, people are understandably reluctant to accept adverse drug effects in addition to the inconvenience of long-term treatment. In this regard, modern drugs represent an enormous improvement. PATHOPHYSIOLOGY AND SITES OF DRUG ACTION Hypertension is occasionally secondary to some distinct disease. However, most patients with persistent arterial hypertension have essential hypertension. Arterial blood pressure is determined by cardiac output, peripheral vascular resistance and large artery compliance. Peripheral vascular resistance is determined by the diameter of resistance vessels (small muscular arteries and arterioles) in the various tissues. One or more of a ‘mosaic’ of interconnected predisposing factors (including positive family history, obesity and phys...