Leo Pharmaceutical Products, Ltd. v. Rea

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• rejecting an obvious-to-try argument because “[u]n-til the advancement made by the inventors ... [t]he problem was not known, the possible approaches to solving the problem were not known or finite, and the solution was not predictable”
• “Whether before the Board or a court, this court has emphasized that consideration of the objective indicia is part of the whole obviousness analysis, not just an afterthought.”
• “Whether before the Board or a court, this court has emphasized that consideration of the objective indicia is part of the whole obviousness analysis, not just an afterthought.”
• “[A]n invention can often be the recognition of a problem itself.”
• “Because the problem was not known, the possible approaches to solving the problem were not known or finite, and the solution was not predictable, it would not have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to make the claimed invention.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).