{"title":"Actavis Group PTC EHF v ICOS Corporation","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/rpc/rcz015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n H1 Patents – European Patents – Pharmaceuticals – Tadalafil – Dosing regimens – Revocation – Obviousness – Obvious to try – Fair expectation of success – Relevant factors – Dose ranging studies – Routine tests – Whether permissible to take into account information not available at priority date – The “patent bargain” – The “problem-and-solution” approach – Role of the appellate court – Appeal to Supreme Court","PeriodicalId":336842,"journal":{"name":"Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Actavis Group PTC EHF v ICOS Corporation\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/rpc/rcz015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n H1 Patents – European Patents – Pharmaceuticals – Tadalafil – Dosing regimens – Revocation – Obviousness – Obvious to try – Fair expectation of success – Relevant factors – Dose ranging studies – Routine tests – Whether permissible to take into account information not available at priority date – The “patent bargain” – The “problem-and-solution” approach – Role of the appellate court – Appeal to Supreme Court\",\"PeriodicalId\":336842,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/rpc/rcz015\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/rpc/rcz015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
H1 Patents – European Patents – Pharmaceuticals – Tadalafil – Dosing regimens – Revocation – Obviousness – Obvious to try – Fair expectation of success – Relevant factors – Dose ranging studies – Routine tests – Whether permissible to take into account information not available at priority date – The “patent bargain” – The “problem-and-solution” approach – Role of the appellate court – Appeal to Supreme Court
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
