Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 26 JUNE 2024

Inherency Remains High Bar To Meet

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Inherent anticipation arises when the prior art discloses a property that is "necessarily present." Arbutus Biopharma Corp. v. Modernatx, Inc., 65 F.4th 656, 662 (Fed. Cir. 2023); Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top-U.S.A...

United StatesIntellectual Property

Inherent anticipation arises when the prior art discloses a property that is "necessarily present." Arbutus Biopharma Corp. v. Modernatx, Inc., 65 F.4th 656, 662 (Fed. Cir. 2023); Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top-U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The Federal Circuit has a long-established standard for determining inherency:

Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient. If, however, the disclosure is sufficient to show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught would result in the performance of the questioned function, it seems to be well settled that the disclosure should be regarded as sufficient.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from