Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Supreme Court to Review Obviousness Standard: Is a Higher Bar for Patentability Imminent?
In reviewing KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, Inc. (No. 04-1350), the Supreme Court is set to tackle one of the fundamental issues of patentability ' the standard for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. '103. As expected, this case has generated significant interest and numerous amicus briefs have been filed. With oral argument expected to be heard late this month, this case marks the first time in 30 years that the Court will examine this particular issue.
The Court first visited the statutory language of '103 in the landmark decision Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), where it set forth the well known four-part analysis for determining obviousness. The Su-preme Court's last decision on the substance of the obviousness standard was in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 274 (1976), where the Court appeared to hold that any invention combining old elements must have a 'synergistic result' in order to be patentable. Since the Court of Ap-peals for the Federal Circuit court was created in 1982, the Supreme Court has not heretofore granted certiorari on this issue, allowing the Federal Circuit to clarify and refine the obviousness analysis as mandated by Graham. To counter against the intrusion of hindsight bias into the obviousness analysis and provide some objective guideline for applying the principles of Graham, the Federal Circuit developed the so-called 'teaching-suggestion-motivation' test, which requires that there be some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine or modify prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention. See, eg, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988); and C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Sys., Inc., 157 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1998). While this Federal Circuit doctrine has been applied in hundreds of cases, it has also been widely criticized as setting the patentability bar too low. With the Supreme Court's recent interest in policing the patent system, the granting of certiorari in KSR signals the likelihood that the Court will impose a heighten standard for patentability. This would dramatically affect all of patent practice ' both patent prosecution and patent infringement litigation.
Case History
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?