tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1584095745863623785..comments2024-03-29T12:23:31.959+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Allergan v Sandoz: when obvious is not obvious enough!Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-32247534099454838512013-05-07T19:15:10.257+01:002013-05-07T19:15:10.257+01:00I think this case beautifully illustrates the comp...I think this case beautifully illustrates the complex interplay between prior art, inherency and newly discovered advantages. The answer is that there isn't really a right answer and the best minds are going to disagree on this. Applicants need to be aware of this uncertainty and appreciate that there is always hopeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-79050692198051854452013-05-07T12:47:35.892+01:002013-05-07T12:47:35.892+01:00@Anon: Well spotted! Thank you.@Anon: Well spotted! Thank you.Stefano Barazzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03305481038339902614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-26210235039351766372013-05-07T11:45:22.435+01:002013-05-07T11:45:22.435+01:00Is there a patent family that includes an EP-B? Ha...Is there a patent family that includes an EP-B? Has there been any litigation in Europe that we can use to help us understand the CAFC? I'm wondering whether an EPO file in the background (or even an EWHC Decision) had any influence on the course of the US litigation.<br /><br />Isn't this a nice case for illustrating the value (or otherwise) of dissent opinions. Imagine where we would be today if they were routine at the EPO.MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-76311933283437630672013-05-07T10:12:08.700+01:002013-05-07T10:12:08.700+01:00I think 'patent compliance' should read &#...I think 'patent compliance' should read 'patient compliance' in the third paragraphAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com