KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

Last updated

KSR v. Teleflex
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 28, 2006
Decided April 30, 2007
Full case nameKSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al.
Docket no. 04-1350
Citations550 U.S. 398 ( more )
127 S. Ct. 1727; 167 L. Ed. 2d 705; 2007 U.S. LEXIS 4745; 82 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1385
Case history
PriorSummary judgment granted for Defendant, 298 F. Supp. 2d 581 (E.D. Mich. 2003); rev'd, 119 F. App'x 282 (Fed. Cir. 2005); cert. granted, 547 U.S. 902(2006).
SubsequentAffirming district court judgment, 228 F. App'x 988 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 20, 2007) (unpublished opinion)
Holding
The Federal Circuit erred in rigidly applying the narrow teaching/suggestion/motivation standard for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, for precluding application of "obvious to try" considerations, and for too rigidly constricting the use of hindsight, in conflict with the broader obviousness evaluation established in Graham. Federal Circuit reversed and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy  · David Souter
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Case opinion
MajorityKennedy, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
35 U.S.C.   § 103

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the issue of obviousness as applied to patent claims. [1]

Contents

Case history

Teleflex sued KSR International, claiming that one of KSR's products infringed Teleflex's patent [2] on connecting an adjustable vehicle control pedal to an electronic throttle control. KSR argued that the combination of the two elements was obvious, and the claim was therefore not patentable. The district court ruled in favor of KSR, [3] but the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed in January 2005. [4]

Oral arguments were heard by the Supreme Court on November 28, 2006. The petitioner, KSR, was represented by James W. Dabney and patent law academic John F. Duffy. Deputy solicitor general Thomas G. Hungar represented the government, which sided with the petitioner. Thomas C. Goldstein argued on behalf of the respondent, Teleflex. [5]

Decision

On April 30, 2007, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the judgment of the Federal Circuit, holding that the disputed claim 4 of the patent was obvious under the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §103, and that in "rejecting the District Court’s rulings, the Court of Appeals analyzed the issue in a narrow, rigid manner inconsistent with §103 and our precedents," referring to the Federal Circuit's application of the "teaching-suggestion-motivation" (TSM) test. [1]

The "person having ordinary skill in the art" standard

Justice Kennedy emphasized that, while his opinion was directed at correcting the "errors of law made by the Court of Appeals in this case," it was necessary to reverse the Federal Circuit's decision in light of the Federal Circuit's misapplication of controlling Supreme Court law: "As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Kennedy's opinion stated, "A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." He acknowledged that his description of a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) does not necessarily conflict with Federal Circuit cases that described a PHOSITA as having "common sense" and who could find motivation "implicitly in the prior art."

Obviousness

When generally describing the obviousness test, the Court was largely uncontroversial:

In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under §103. One of the ways in which a patent's subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of invention a known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent's claims. [1]

However, when the standard was applied to the facts before the Court, the Court stated:

The proper question to have asked was whether a pedal designer of ordinary skill, facing the wide range of needs created by developments in the field of endeavor, would have seen a benefit to upgrading [a prior art patent] with a sensor. [1]

The court proposed several criteria that can be used to reject a patent claim for obviousness:

Implications

A great deal of debate sprang up in the wake of the decision, particularly over the implications on the TSM test and concepts including "obvious to try", "person having ordinary skill in the art" and summary judgment. While not explicitly denouncing the TSM test, there is some harsh language in regard to it and the Federal Circuit's application of the test. The opinion stated that the application of the bar on patents claiming obvious subject matter "must not be confined within a test or formulation too constrained to serve its purpose." The opinion does denounce procedures that bar the use of "common sense" in multiple instances, including where "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it." [1] Chief Judge Paul Michel of the Federal Circuit was quoted saying that by his interpretation, the TSM test remains part of the calculation of obviousness, "but it gives us forceful instruction on the manner in which the test is to be applied." [6]

The KSR decision has been criticized as substituting the statutory requirement of non-obviousness for an easier-to-prove evidence of unpredictability. [7] [8] [9] [10]

A statistical study [11] noted that there was a multi-fold increase in the percentage of patents found invalid on trials both on the basis of novelty and of non-obviousness before and after the certiorari in KSR. These percentages declined to almost pre-KSR levels in the two years following KSR.

In Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., [12] the Federal Circuit began applying the KSR case, holding U.S. Patent 5,813,861 [13] invalid as obvious. A KSR-style obviousness analysis was applied in Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc. . [14]

The USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) cites KSR in about 60% of its decisions related to obviousness irrespective of whether it affirms a patent examiner's rejection or reverses the rejection. [15] Overall reversal rates have stayed about the same, indicating that KSR has not suddenly made all inventions obvious. The BPAI is emphasizing that examiners must still give strong reasons for their rejections. The USPTO management has backed this emphasis up with a memorandum to all technology directors instructing them that when making an obviousness rejection "it remains necessary to identify the reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the prior art elements in the manner claimed." [16]

In the article The KSR Standard for Obviousness: A Pendulum Shift to 20/20 Hindsight, [17] attorneys Michael O. Warnecke, Esq., and Brandy R. McMillion, Esq. discuss how the 2007 Supreme Court decision creates the need for full knowledge and complete understanding about the obviousness of a new technology before the 2007 ruling (20/20 Hindsight).

See also

Related Research Articles

A person having ordinary skill in the art, a person of (ordinary) skill in the art, a person skilled in the art, a skilled addressee or simply a skilled person is a legal fiction found in many patent laws throughout the world. This hypothetical person is considered to have the normal skills and knowledge in a particular technical field, without being a genius. This measure mainly serves as a reference for determining, or at least evaluating, whether an invention is non-obvious or not, or involves an inventive step or not. If it would have been obvious for this fictional person to come up with the invention while starting from the prior art, then the particular invention is considered not patentable.

Neither software nor computer programs are explicitly mentioned in statutory United States patent law. Patent law has changed to address new technologies, and decisions of the United States Supreme Court and United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) beginning in the latter part of the 20th century have sought to clarify the boundary between patent-eligible and patent-ineligible subject matter for a number of new technologies including computers and software. The first computer software case in the Supreme Court was Gottschalk v. Benson in 1972. Since then, the Supreme Court has decided about a half dozen cases touching on the patent eligibility of software-related inventions.

The inventive step and non-obviousness reflect a general patentability requirement present in most patent laws, according to which an invention should be sufficiently inventive—i.e., non-obvious—in order to be patented. In other words, "[the] nonobviousness principle asks whether the invention is an adequate distance beyond or above the state of the art".

Sufficiency of disclosure or enablement is a patent law requirement that a patent application disclose a claimed invention in sufficient detail so that the person skilled in the art could carry out that claimed invention. The requirement is fundamental to patent law: a monopoly is granted for a given period of time in exchange for a disclosure to the public how to make or practice the invention.

The United States is considered to have the most favorable legal regime for inventors and patent owners in the world. Under United States law, a patent is a right granted to the inventor of a (1) process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, (2) that is new, useful, and non-obvious. A patent is the right to exclude others, for a limited time from profiting from a patented technology without the consent of the patent holder. Specifically, it is the right to exclude others from: making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, inducing others to infringe, applying for an FDA approval, and/or offering a product specially adapted for practice of the patent.

The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) was an administrative law body of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) which decided issues of patentability. Under the America Invents Act, the BPAI was replaced with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), effective September 16, 2012.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John F. Duffy</span> American lawyer (born 1963)

John Fitzgerald Duffy is Professor of Law at University of Virginia School of Law in Charlottesville, Virginia. He is a Legal Commentator and Author who has written numerous articles and co-authored a scholarly book on patent law. He previously served as law clerk to Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and Stephen F. Williams, Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Between these two assignments, he served as an attorney at the Office of Legal Counsel in the United States Department of Justice. In addition to clerking for Justice Scalia, John Duffy has been very influential in regard to constitutional law and the appointment of federal judges.

Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified the nonobviousness requirement in United States patent law, set forth 14 years earlier in Patent Act of 1952 and codified as 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Title 35 of the United States Code is a title of United States Code regarding patent law. The sections of Title 35 govern all aspects of patent law in the United States. There are currently 37 chapters, which include 376 sections, in Title 35.

Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 248 (1851), was a United States Supreme Court decision credited with introducing into United States patent law the concept of non-obviousness as a patentability requirement, as well as stating the applicable legal standard for determining its presence or absence in a claimed invention.

Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969), is a 1969 decision of the United States Supreme Court on the legal standard governing the obviousness of claimed inventions. It stands for the proposition that, when old elements are combined in a way such that they do not interact in a novel, unobvious way, then the resulting combination is obvious and therefore unpatentable.

In United States patent law, the machine-or-transformation test is a test of patent eligibility under which a claim to a process qualifies for consideration if (1) the process is implemented by a particular machine in a non-conventional and non-trivial manner or (2) the process transforms an article from one state to another.

Sakraida v. Ag Pro Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976), was a unanimous 1976 Supreme Court decision holding a claimed invention obvious because it "simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, although perhaps producing a more striking result than in previous combinations."

Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc. 587 F.3d 1324, is a United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case in which the court held that a patent can be invalidated due to the obvious nature of the asserted claims. Perfect Web, an e-mail marketer, sued its competitor InfoUSA for patent infringement, claiming that InfoUSA's bulk email distribution method infringed its Patent No. 6,631,400. The district court initially found that the patent did not meet the non-obviousness requirement and was therefore invalid. On appeal, The Federal Court agreed that the patent was obvious because someone of ordinary skill could arrive at the patent claim using common sense.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Novelty and non-obviousness in Canadian patent law</span>

For a patent to be valid in Canada, the invention claimed therein needs to be new and inventive. In patent law, these requirements are known as novelty and non-obviousness. A patent cannot in theory be granted for an invention without meeting these basic requirements or at least, if a patent which does not meet these requirements is granted, it cannot later be maintained. These requirements are borne out of a combination of statute and case law.

Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66 (2012), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that unanimously held that claims directed to a method of giving a drug to a patient, measuring metabolites of that drug, and with a known threshold for efficacy in mind, deciding whether to increase or decrease the dosage of the drug, were not patent-eligible subject matter.

Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), was a 2014 United States Supreme Court decision about patent eligibility of business method patents. The issue in the case was whether certain patent claims for a computer-implemented, electronic escrow service covered abstract ideas, which would make the claims ineligible for patent protection. The patents were held to be invalid, because the claims were drawn to an abstract idea, and implementing those claims on a computer was not enough to transform that abstract idea into patentable subject matter.

In US patent law, non-obviousness is one of the requirements that an invention must meet to qualify for patentability, codified as a part of Patent Act of 1952 as 35 U.S.C. §103. An invention is not obvious if a "person having ordinary skill in the art" (PHOSITA) would not know how to solve the problem at which the invention is directed by using exactly the same mechanism. Since the PHOSITA standard turned to be too ambiguous in practice, the U.S. Supreme Court provided later two more useful approaches which currently control the practical analysis of non-obviousness by patent examiners and courts: Graham et al. v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City et al., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) gives guidelines of what is "non-obvious", and KSR v. Teleflex (2006) gives guidelines of what is "obvious".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patentable subject matter in the United States</span>

Patentable subject matter in the United States is governed by 35 U.S.C. 101. The current patentable subject matter practice in the U.S. is very different from the corresponding practices by WIPO/Patent Cooperation Treaty and by the European Patent Office, and it is considered to be broader in general.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. ↑ U.S. patent 6,237,565 . "Adjustable pedal assembly with electronic throttle control", 2001-05-29
  3. ↑ Teleflex Inc. v. KSR Int'l Co., 298F. Supp. 2d581 ( E.D. Mich. 2003).
  4. ↑ Teleflex Inc. v. KSR Int'l Co., 119F. App'x282 ( Fed. Cir. 2005).
  5. ↑ Oral Argument Transcript, 2006-11-28
  6. ↑ More on the impact of KSR, Lawrence Ebert, SCOTUS blog, 2007-05-01
  7. ↑ Christopher A. Cotropia, Predictability and Nonobviousness in Patent Law After KSR, 20 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 391 (2014)
  8. ↑ Tripathi, Shivnath, Obviousness Post KSR and Predictability (February 11, 2014). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2394211 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2394211 or https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2394211
  9. ↑ Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. 165 (2013–2014) Not All Patents are Created Equal: Bias against Predictable Arts Patents in the Post-KSR Landscape . https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/jointpro13&div=11&id=&page=
  10. ↑ https://sughrue.gjassets.com/content/uploads/2021/03/Implementing-a-Predictable-Obviousness-Standard-Post-KSR.pdf [ bare URL PDF ]
  11. ↑ Mojibi, A. (2010). "AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF KSR V. TELEFLEX ON THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT’S PATENT VALIDITY JURISPRUDENCE " Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology 20(3): 559-596.
  12. ↑ Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485F.3d1157 (Fed. Cir.2007).
  13. ↑ U.S. patent 5,813,861
  14. ↑ Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc. , 587F.3d1324 (Fed. Cir.2009).
  15. ↑ Nowotarski, Mark, “Using KSR to Overcome an Obviousness Rejection”, Intellectual Property Today, September 2007
  16. ↑ Focarino, Margaret, Deputy Commissioner of Operations, USTPO "Supreme Court decision on KSR Int'l. Co., v. Teleflex, Inc.", internal memo to USPTO technology art unit directors, May 3, 2006
  17. ↑ Macedo, C. R.; Kasdan, M. J.; Ahsanuddin, A. (November 1, 2012). "The dangers of hindsight bias in the context of obviousness". Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. 7 (11): 779–781. doi:10.1093/jiplp/jps139. ISSN   1747-1532.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.