By John Nilsson (June 18, 2021, 1:18 PM EDT) -- In Raytheon Technologies Corp. v. General Electric Co., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit returned to one of the more interesting issues in patent law jurisprudence — the distinctions between analyzing an anticipatory reference under Title 35 of the U.S. Code, Section 102, and analyzing an obviousness reference (or combination of references) under Section 103.
It's long been the case that anticipation references must be "enabled" or "enabling" (we'll get into the difference) to be invalidating. Obviousness references, though, haven't needed to be.
In Raytheon, the court collapsed the distinction, at least between anticipation references and single-reference or...
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
Access to case data within articles (numbers, filings, courts, nature of suit, and more.)
Access to attached documents such as briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more!