Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
On Nov. 28, 2006, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (04-1350), a case that could dramatically alter the non-obviousness standard of patentability. On Nov. 18, 2002, Teleflex Inc. sued KSR International Co. ('KSR') for infringement of Claim 4 of U.S. Patent 6,237,565, which relates to an adjustable pedal assembly for use with automobiles having engines that are controlled electronically with a device known as an electronic throttle control. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of KSR after determining that Claim 4 was invalid for obviousness. On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case because 'the district court did not apply the correct teaching-suggestion-motivation test.' The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the question:
Whether the Federal Circuit has erred in holding that a claimed invention cannot be held 'obvious,' and thus unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. '103(a), in the absence of some proven ”teaching, suggestion, or motivation' that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the relevant prior art teachings in the manner claimed.'
During oral argument, several justices expressed their distaste for the Federal Circuit's teaching-suggestion-motivation test. Specifically, Justices Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia questioned what was meant by the term 'motivation.' Justice Scalia called the test 'meaningless' and 'gobbledygook' while Chief Justice John G. Roberts called it 'worse than meaningless.' Both the petitioner, KSR, and the United States, as amicus curaie, argued that the teaching-suggestion-motivation test may have a place in the obviousness determination, but that it cannot be the exclusive analysis. Respondent Teleflex argued that the Federal Circuit test simply provided an analytical framework to the obviousness standard. Teleflex also emphasized that the teaching-suggestion-motivation test underlies 160,000 patents every year and a change would create dramatic instability. While the Court did seem concerned about this instability argument, it seems safe to expect that a strongly worded opinion is forthcoming denouncing the teaching-suggestion-motivation test as the exclusive rubric in the obviousness analysis.
Federal Circuit Expresses Willingness to Reconsider De Novo Claim Construction Review
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.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?