English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This Article examines the balance between advancing one's arguments that a patent is invalid for lack of enablement and also arguing that a patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the prior art.  This is significant with regards to arguments made by an expert in his or her expert report or at trial.  A clear litigation strategy is thus recommended prior to reaching the expert report stage in a patent litigation.

HARMONIZING THE DOCTRINES OF ENABLEMENT AND OBVIOUSNESS IN PATENT LITIGATION