Legal Opinion · Dissent

Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Decided July 3, 1989No. 88-1513Published

1DissentBissell, Circuit Judge

I would affirm the district court’s decision that the claims at issue in United States Patent No. 3,781,430 (’430) were not shown to have been obvious under 35 U.S. C. § 103 (1982). The district court concluded that a combination of amiloride and hy-drochlorothiazide as claimed in the ’430 patent was merely “obvious to try” based on the prior art. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories, Inc., 690 F.Supp. 1376, 1381 (D.N.J.1988) (citing In re Geiger, 815 F.2d 686, 688, 2 USPQ2d 1276, 1278 (Fed.Cir.1987) (rejecting “obvious to try” as the standard for determining obviousness)).

Obviousness,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corporation, Premix, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
  2. In Re Gary E. GEIGERCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
  3. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1988

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API