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

Seminar

More Practical Advice for Overcoming Inventive Step Rejections at the EPO and the USPTO in the Chemical and Life Sciences Industries

September 17, 2014

London, United Kingdom

Following on the inventive step vs. obviousness webinar from earlier this year, this seminar will focus specifically on the chemical, biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries.

The requirements for inventive step in Europe and non-obviousness in the United States have many similarities but also some subtle differences. In most cases, you might expect similar results, but in some cases, you can end up with very different and unexpected outcomes. With global patenting strategies, companies often struggle to ensure consistency when prosecuting applications to grant in both jurisdictions. In this seminar, we shall look closely at obviousness at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), inventive step at the European Patent Office (EPO), how they are both assessed and how objections can be overcome in the chemical, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology areas. Our panel will explore:

  • What works for combating objections at these patent offices
  • Why what works at one may not necessarily work at the other
  • Strategies that can work at both
  • Additional approaches to consider in each jurisdiction

The panel will also discuss some of the techniques and strategies they have successfully implemented for patenting chemical and life sciences inventions, often in crowded art fields, including:

  • The lead compound/product analysis
  • Developing a cogent theory of lack of reasonable expectation of success
  • The use of secondary considerations, such as: 
    • comparative testing establishing unexpectedly beneficial results 
    • long-felt but unresolved need 
    • commercial success
  • Plus many other tips and practical advice

Admission is free, but space is limited. Please register by 12 September.

Moderator: 
Anthony C. Tridico, Ph.D.

Speakers: 
Bryan C. Diner
Erin M. Sommers, Ph.D.
Leythem A. Wall

Date:

Wednesday, 17 September 2014

Time:

12:30 - 13:00 - Registration
13:00 - 16:00 - Program
16:00 - 17:00 - Reception

Location:

Finnegan
16 Old Bailey
London EC4M 7EG

Related Practices

Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials

Related Industries

Chemical

製藥

Related Offices

London

Related Professionals

Bryan C. Diner
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4116
Email
Anthony C. Tridico, Ph.D.
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4173
Email
Erin M. Sommers, Ph.D.
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4292
Email

Related Insights

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

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

Conference

BIA Start-up Festival

May 21, 2026

London

At the PTAB Blog

Before the Holding, the Message: Director Squires Uses Magnolia Medical to Outline PTAB Discretionary Denial Policy Changes

May 20, 2026

Conference

19th Annual Forum on Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation in Europe

May 19-20, 2026

Amsterdam

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