Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Non-obviousness in United States patent law. In US patent law, non-obviousness is one of the requirements that an invention must meet to qualify for patentability, codified as a part of Patent Act of 1952 as 35 U.S.C. §103. An invention is not obvious if a "person having ordinary skill in the art" (PHOSITA) would not know how to solve the ...
The inventive step and non-obviousness reflect a general patentability requirement present in most patent laws, according to which an invention should be sufficiently inventive—i.e., non-obvious—in order to be patented. [1] In other words, " [the] nonobviousness principle asks whether the invention is an adequate distance beyond or above ...
United States patent law. The United States is considered to have the most favorable legal regime for inventors and patent owners in the world. [1] Under United States law, a patent is a right granted to the inventor of a (1) process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, (2) that is new, useful, and non-obvious.
Patentable, statutory or patent-eligible subject matter is subject matter of an invention that is considered appropriate for patent protection in a given jurisdiction. The laws and practices of many countries stipulate that certain types of inventions should be denied patent protection. Together with criteria such as novelty, inventive step or ...
The current patentable subject matter practice in the U.S. is very different from the corresponding practices by WIPO / Patent Cooperation Treaty and by the European Patent Office, and it is considered to be broader in general. The US Constitution gives the Congress broad powers to decide what types of inventions should be patentable and what ...
United States patent law. As with all utility patents in the United States, a biological patent provides the patent holder with the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, or importing the claimed invention or discovery in biology for a limited period of time - for patents filed after 1998, 20 years from the filing date.
United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. - Supreme Court, 1973. Relation between patent law and antitrust law. Dann v. Johnston - Supreme Court, 1976. Patentability of a claim for a business method patent (but the decision turns on obviousness rather than patent-eligibility). Sakraida v. Ag Pro - Supreme Court, 1976.
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with whether living organisms can be patented.Writing for a five-justice majority, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger held that human-made bacteria could be patented under the patent laws of the United States because such an invention constituted a "manufacture" or "composition of matter".