On April 30, 2007, a patent litigation case concerning obviousness involving connecting an ‘adjustable vehicle control pedal to an electronic throttle control’ was closed between KSR and Teleflex. According to Teleflex, KSR had infringed on one of its patents because it had been selling products that used a similar idea to the device involving the vehicle control pedal. After examining this case, the Supreme Court ruled that Teleflex’s patent was actually invalid due to obviousness, allowing for KSR to win the case. This case was very significant in highlighting the concept of obviousness that can be present in a patent application.
In order to determine whether or not an invention is obvious, steps must be taken to examine all aspects of a patent:
- Determine the scope and content of the prior art;
- Ascertain the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art
- Resolve the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
- Consider objective indicia of non-obviousness (i.e., are there secondary considerations of non-obviousness that suggest a patent should issue despite an invention seeming to be obvious?).
After these four steps have been taken, patent obviousness can become much more clear. In the case between KSR and Teleflex, KSR ultimately won not because their argument was stronger than Teleflex’s, but because Teleflex’s patent was actually internally invalid. This case is a perfect example of the important precautions that must be taken by anyone aiming to file a patent.
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLP90Ok8BhU&feature=youtu.be
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete• Hi Daniel,
ReplyDeleteGreat post, I especially liked how you highlighted the meaning of obviousness in order to strengthen the reasoning behind Teleflex's patent invalidity. Luckily for Teleflex, they discovered the invalidity of their patent while acting as the enforcers in this patent litigation case, as should they have been attempting to defend their product with this particular component of their IP portfolio, they could have lost a significantly larger amount than they did. Keep up the good work.
Hi Daniel,
ReplyDeleteI like how you clearly explained all of the points of the case. It was very easy to understand the case through your explanation and I think you did a great job of explaining obviousness. Great post!