Abstract
While Campbell’s canned soup is appetizing to many, patent attorneys may not have an appetite for the law of obviousness. In the Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) process, a petitioner often attempts to invalidate patent claims using the sword of obviousness. When defending a patent in an IPR, a patent owner must apply evidence supporting patent validity to the invention itself. Why even have the requirement to link evidence to a patented invention in the first place? Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc. attempted to answer this question.
Recommended Citation
Avery J. Welker,
Mmm, mmm, no good: Refocusing on the Article of Manufacture Requirement for Obviousness of Design Patents,
87 Mo. L. Rev.
(2022)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol87/iss3/19