Posts Tagged: "In re Stepan Co."

Reasonable Expectation of Success to the Rescue

In the last several months, lack of a reasonable expectation of success was a major factor in the reversal of two obviousness rulings by the Federal Circuit. One originated from the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“Board”) (In Re Stepan Company, Aug. 25, 2017) (“In re Stepan”) and the other from a district court Genzyme Corporation v. Dr. Reddy’s Lab., Dec. 18, 2017, (“Genzyme”). In re Stepan emphasizes that reasonable expectation of success requires a motivation to do more than simply vary all parameters or try all possible choices until success is achieved. In Genzyme, the Court explained that a hypothesis presented in passing in a reference, without more, is not enough for an ordinarily skilled person to have a reasonable expectation of success. While In re Stepan has relevance for patent applicants facing conclusory obviousness rejections, Genzyme is cautionary for patent challengers banking too heavily on isolated, unsupported statements as a basis for obviousness.

Sanjeev Mahanta, Ph.D., J.D.

March 9, 2018

Board cannot shift burden of proving patentability to applicant, must articulate reasoning

The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the Board’s decision, finding that it “failed to adequately articulate its reasoning, erroneously rejected relevant evidence of nonobviousness, and improperly shifted to Stepan the burden of proving patentability.” … The Board cannot shift the burden of proving patentability to the applicant, and must provide sufficient reasoning or explanation for why a skilled artisan would have found the claimed invention obvious, particularly when given evidence of unexpected results or “no reasonable expectation of success.” It is not enough for the Board to merely state that a combination of prior art would have been “routine.”

Joseph Robinson & Robert Schaffer

September 4, 2017