References
- Elliott T . Post-KSR obviousness: the effects of the patent and trademark office’s exemplary rationales on patent litigation. Geo. Mason L. Rev.16(4), 1011 (2008).
- Dhulap S , KulkarniMG. Prima facie obviousness of pharmaceutical patents implications for enantiomers. World Pat. Inf.54, 39–45 (2018).
- KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
- Thomas JR , RichardsJ, SchwartzHF, LeeSJ. Panel 1: KSR v. Teleflex: the nonobviousness requirement of patentability. Fordham Intellectual Property Media Entertainment Law J.17, 875–932 (2007).
- Drews J . Drug discovery: a historical perspective. Science287(5460), 1960–1964 (2000).
- Bleicher K , BöhmH, MüllerK, AlanineAI. A guide to drug discovery: hit and lead generation: beyond high-throughput screening. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov.2(5), 369–378 (2003).
- Herrling PL . The drug discovery process. In: Imaging in Drug Discovery and Early Clinical Trials (volume 62). HerrlingPL, MatterA, RudinM ( Eds). Birkhäuser Basel, Switzerland, 1–14 (2005).
- Newsome A . Side effects of ever greening may include decreased competition and increased prices in the pharmaceutical industry. AIPLA45(4), 791 (2017).
- Locke S , SchmidtWD. Protecting pharmaceutical inventions in a KSR world. IDEA50(1), 1–26 (2009).
- Yamanouchi Pharm. Co., Ltd v. Danbury Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , Docket No. 99–1521, 231 F.3d 1339 (2000).
- In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391 (1963).
- Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd: US4287200 (1981).
- Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. and Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc. v. Alphapharm Pty. Ltd. and Genpharm, Inc, No. 06–1329 (2007).
- In Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Nos. 08–1404, -1405, -1406 (2009)
- Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd: US4734416 (1988).
- Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd: DE2912105 (1985).
- Murasaki M . New psycho-neuro agents. Japanese J. Clin. Psychiatry1515–1517 (1987).
- Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Sandoz, Inc., Nos 11–1126 (2012).
- Pfizer Inc.: US4572909 (1986).
- Bergel, 292 F.2d 958 (C.C.P.A. 1961) (1961).
- Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 82 USPQ2d 132 (2007).
- Sanofi-Aventis France: US4529596 (1985).
- Sanofi-Aventis France: CA1194875 (1985).
- Sanofi -Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., No. 07–1438 (2008).
- In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1088–89 (1978).
- Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Lupin, Ltd, Nos. 06–1530, -1555 (2000).
- Ortho-Mcneil Pharmaceuticals v. Mylan Laboratories, 348 F. Supp. 2d 713 (2004).
- Purohit R , VenugopalanP. Polymorphism: an overview. Resonance14, 882 (2009).
- Desiraju GR . Studies in organic chemistry. In: Organic Solid State Chemistry. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 471–518 (1987).
- Sachs G . Pump blockers and ulcer disease. N. Engl. J. Med.310, 785–786 (1984).
- Bryson A . The ionization constants of 3-substituted pyridines, 3-substituted quinolines and 4-substituted isoquinolines. J. Am. Chem. Soc.82, 4871–4877 (1960).
- Altana Pharma AG v. Teva Pharma. USA, 566 F.3d 999, 1008 09 (2009).
- Brändström A , LindbergP, JunggrenU. Structure activity relationships of substituted benzimidazoles. Scand. J. Gastroentero.108, 15–22 (1985).