Less commonly asserted is prior invention by another under 102(g)(2).
This argument rested on the undisputed fact that although Astra Zeneca's drug contained an AGCP compound, it was designed to use a non-AGCP compound as the stabilizer; the AGCP compound was believed to be a disintegrant.
Invalidity prior art searches are used to invalidate a patent that has been or may be asserted.
It also may also be used to pro-actively assess the validity of a patent prior to enforcing it.
The case was discussed in an earlier Patently-O Posting titled Structuring a Privateering Contract (2012).
= = = = Note – although this case was decided under pre-AIA rules, its holding should apply equally to the restructured Section 102 that also identifies “printed publications” as a form of prior art.
A divided panel on that court has provided insights into where things stand with regards to obviousness post- the patent at issue claims a method for processing liver cells that involves subjecting frozen and thawed liver cells to “density gradient fractionation” in order to separate viable cells from non-viable ones.The viable cells are then frozen and thawed again “without requiring” a second density gradient step.The appellate court recounts the background to this invention at some length, including the problems with existing methods for processing liver cells. The trial court, for its part, had reviewed a large body of prior art and was impressed that not one reference discussed a multi-round freezing process.We use proprietary reference charting to map every claim limitation against relevant prior art references, clearly showing you bases for 35 U. All knowledge in the prior art can now be cited to distinguish a true innovation from a mere product of connecting the dots in the relevant field.