A recent Supreme Court decision has introduced some uncertainty regarding the determination of obviousness of an invention.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (No. 04-1350).
US Patent No. 6,237,565.
US Patent No. 5,460,061.
US Patent No. 5,819,593.
US Patent No. 5,063,811.
298 F. Supp. 2d 581; 2003.
Teleflex Ind. v KSR International Co. 04-1152 (119 Fed. Appx. 282; 2005).
Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 2007 US App. LEXIS 10496 (Fed. Cir. May 3, 2007).
Pfizer v. Apotex (06-1261).
Papesch, 315 F.2d 381.
Sanofi v. Apotex 02 Civ. 2255 (US Dist. 2007).
US Patent No. 4,847, 265.
Takeda Chem. Indus. et al. v. Alphapharm et al., No. 06-1329 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Teitelbaum, R., Cohen, M. Obviousness, hindsight and perspective: the impact of KSR v. Teleflex on biotech and pharmaceutical patents. Nat Biotechnol 25, 1105–1106 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1007-1105
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1007-1105
This article is cited by
-
A nail in the coffin for DNA sequence patents?
Nature Biotechnology (2008)
-
Patentability issues surrounding antivirals
Nature Biotechnology (2007)