Prior art that seems to only vaguely resemble your invention may later serve to invalidate your patent if appropriate steps are not taken early on.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
See Lindenmann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist and Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
See Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. USA Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1255-56 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citing Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 771 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264,1268-69 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Id. (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578,581 (C.C.P.A. 1981)(quoting Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214 (C.C.P.A. 1939)).
877 F. Supp. 531 (D. Col. 1994).
Id. at 536-37.
Id. at 1583.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Moroz, E., Schildkraut, M. As a matter of scientific fact: Applying the inherency doctrine in biotechnology. Nat Biotechnol 15, 1403–1404 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1297-1403
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1297-1403
