June 24, 2015
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “The Two Faces of Establishing Patentability of a New Chemical,” presented by James A. Zak. The webinar will take place on Wednesday, June 24, 2015, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
To be a patentable invention, a chemical compound must be new and non-obvious. To establish that the compound is non-obvious, a lead compound is selected in the prior art, and the new compound is compared to the lead compound to determine if the new compound is merely an obvious modification. A lead compound is selected by one of two methods, which differ with respect to the rationale used to identify the lead compound and how allegations of obviousness can be refuted. Given the critical role of the lead compound to the non-obviousness determination, when attempting to patent a new compound, one must be mindful of how the lead compound will be selected.
During this webinar, we will discuss the following:
- Methods of selecting a lead compound
- Structural similarity
- Rational selection
- Assumptions made based on structural similarity and how to overcome them
- Why what is believed about a rationally selected lead compound is more important than its real properties
- How to make others select the lead compound of your choosing
Our speaker will be Fitch Even attorney James A. Zak. James chiefly focuses his practice on the intersection of intellectual property and FDA law, often working with startups in FDA-regulated industries to develop and align their IP and FDA market approval strategies while simultaneously developing robust patent portfolios.
IP Alert | Federal Circuit Issues Significant Decision on Patent MarkingFebruary 21, 2020
The Federal Circuit, in Arctic Cat v. Bombardier Recreational Products, broadens patent marking defense for accused infringers. Read more
IP Alert | Settlement Agreement Held to Moot Pending Case-Dispositive MotionsFebruary 19, 2020
On February 13, in Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC v. Casper Sleep Inc., the Federal Circuit held that a settlement agreement rendered the case moot, even where the agreement required future performance. Read more