直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Article

Patenting Antibody Combination Therapies

December 3, 2020

Antibody Therapeutics

By Li Feng, Ph.D.; Lin Chen, Ph.D.; Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.; Jeffrey M. Jacobstein; Stacy Lewis*

There is emerging, intense interest in antibody combination therapies. However, antibody combination therapies pose unique intellectual property challenges. In some instances, it may be difficult to obtain patents with claims that provide innovators with adequate protection for such inventions. Patent examiners often regard claims to a composition or use of an antibody in combination with another therapeutic agent as obvious if the individual components of the combination were both known and well-studied in the field for use in treating similar indications. Nevertheless, even if the individual components of a combination were known and generally effective, the combination therapy may not be obvious if there would not have been a motivation to specifically combine the individual components or if there was no reasonable expectation of success in combining the components. Antibody combination therapies may also offer fertile grounds for demonstrating objective evidence of nonobviousness for a particular combination, such as through unexpected results, if a sufficient nexus can be established across the scope of the claims and if the superior results constitute a significant improvement.

 Read the full article here.  

Tags

antibodies, combination product, non-obviousness

Related Industries

Life Sciences

Biotechnology

Related Offices

Boston, MA

Washington, DC

Related Professionals

Li Feng, Ph.D.
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4382
Email
Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.
Partner
London
+44 (0)20 7864 2814
Email
Jeffrey M. Jacobstein
Partner
Boston, MA
+1 617 646 1664
Email

*Stacy Lewis is a Law Clerk at Finnegan.

Originally printed in Antibody Therapeutics on December 3, 2020. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm's clients.

Related Insights

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Conference

Georgia Life Sciences Summit 2026

August 25-26, 2026

Sandy Springs

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Conference

IPBC Global 2026

June 15-17, 2026

San Diego

Seminar

3rd AI, IP, & Legal Forum

June 6, 2026

Shangai

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP