Patentee loses on summary judgment in Warner Chilcott v. Teva
The "reasonable to try" aspect of obviousness arose in the case:
In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903–04 (Fed. Cir.
1988) (“Obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success. . . .
For obviousness under § 103, all that is required is
a reasonable expectation of success.”).
The district court therefore did not err in concluding that the
asserted claims would have been obvious in view of the
prior art. (...)
However, lack of certainty does not preclude a conclusion
of obviousness. Therefore, upon a careful review of
the record as a whole, and drawing all
justifiable inferences in the Plaintiffs’ favor, we
agree with the district court that
the Plaintiffs fail to raise any genuine issue of material
fact to preclude summary judgment. We
therefore conclude as a matter of law that the asserted claims would
have been obvious.