Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court to Rule On 'Obvious' Patents
vocaro writes "The U.S. Supreme Court appears ready to rewrite the standard of what makes a patent 'obvious.' In a case before the court, brake manufacturer Teleflex is accusing a rival, KSR International, of violating its patent on a brake assembly. Large patent holders, including Microsoft, IBM, and Cisco, have submitted briefs supporting KSR, saying that true innovators can have a patent held up against them that reflects nothing more than an obvious combination of preexisting elements, then be told they have to leave the market or pay royalties. The court appears to be on KSR's side, saying that Teleflex's invention would have been obvious to an individual of reasonable skill. During oral arguments, Justice Breyer observed, 'It looks to me at about the same level as I have a sensor on my garage door at the lower hinge ... and the raccoons are eating it. So I think of the brainstorm of putting it on the upper hinge.'"
Gotta love the analogy with the raccoons. Sounds like a judge finally gets it.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Uh no.. Will Slashdot lose its patent on dupes?
Too late dude, I already patented that.
licet differant, aequabitur
Hopefully, the court won't go so far as to create a new standard, just rule that the current one is not Constitutional. That would force Congress to write a new patent standard, which is who should be deciding the issue. Patents haven't become high viz enough to be a campaign issue, but I'd love to see an advisory panel of both industry and academic representatives formed to create a better system, and then have Congress vote on that.
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
Perceptive post.
Making it no longer necessary for patents to be non-obvious?
Since there is already a statute that requires patents to be nonobvious -- 35 U.S.C. 103 -- it's unlikey that the courts are going to go in this direction.
Shifting the burden of proof so that the patenter (not the alleged infringer) has to prove that the patent is non-obvious? I thought this was legally the status quo, though the quality of some patents would suggest practice differs for software...
Once a patent is issued, it is presumed valid -- which means, it is presumed to be patentable subject matter (35 U.S.C. 101), novel (35 U.S.C. 102), nonobvious (35 U.S.C. 103), and enabled (35 U.S.C. 112). It is up to the person challenging the validity to show why a patent isn't patentable, isn't novel, is obvious, or is not enabled.
I guess they could be trying to move away from the presumption of validity, in which case a patent owner would need to prove that the patent WAS valid in order to assert the patent (the opposite of what we have now). Maybe that's the way we want to go, to a European-style patent system. Personally I don't think it's the right way to go, but what do I know.
Replacing the test with one that better accomplishes the same goal? (Somewhere there must be details of how this is tested, and they're not good?) I guess this seems most likely, given this quote: "I would say its [the lower court's?] test is meaningless," said Scalia. "It doesn't add anything to the question, 'Would a person of ordinary skill in this field have conceived of this idea?' "
To show that an invention is "obvious," you need essentially need to show one or more pieces of prior art that, in combination, "anticipate" or disclose the invention seeking to be patented, and you must show some "motivation to combine" the art into a single invention. The criticisms typically focus either on the fact that the art must meet the standards for prior art -- which usually means a written record -- or that the motivation to combine factor is too nebulous.
It is a tricky test; however, the test is an attempt to balance "hindsight" against wha is truely obvious. The problem is, almost every invention is "obvious" in hindsight -- the current obviousness test is an attempt to weed out hindsight.
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
The problem with a lot of these obvious patents isn't whether the invention was obvious or not, but whether the patent is an invention at all.
A cotton gin is an invention, and should be patentable. Mechanically removing seeds from cotton is a problem, and shouldn't be patentable.
paintball
Strikes me as true, and as always when claiming something is obvious, it begs the question "how come you didn't think of it then?"
Well most of these people actually do think of the solution and actually create a working product, but then a Submarine Patent Troll comes out of the woodwork telling them that their actual invention violates their vague patent that they never bothered to bring to market or tell anyone else about.
That is the key problem here... Not that it is just obvious, but they are going after people who do come up with the idea themselves rather than those who have stolen the idea from them.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I think you have nailed the current problem - the patent trolls who patent things that others have done but didn't think it was patentable/worth patenting. Of course, prior art should invalidate the patent, but that only works if you've got the money to pay for a lawyer, which brings me back to what I said above, and what appears to have been ignored. The problem with the system is the requirement for judges and lawyers to make decisions that they are seemingly not qualified or able to make.
Well most of these people actually do think of the solution and actually create a working product, but then a Submarine Patent Troll comes out of the woodwork telling them that their actual invention violates their vague patent that they never bothered to bring to market or tell anyone else about.
What is a "submarine patent troll?" The 1995 Amendments to the patent laws pretty much ended the endless continuation practice that Lemelson, the original "submarine patent guy" used to his advantage.
BTW, patents are public record -- they are all publicly available on the USPTO website. Should a patent holder have to go out and notify any potential infringers before they begin developing a product?
That is the key problem here... Not that it is just obvious, but they are going after people who do come up with the idea themselves rather than those who have stolen the idea from them.
How do you propose we sort out the "true" infringers who are "stealing" an idea from those who came up with the idea independently? What test to you propose to determine what independent development is? How far "back" in the development stream do you need to go to show "independence?"
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
* (( in my mind, the current test, is really just a reformulation of the 'novel' test, because if you can prove that it isn't novel (new), then it won't pass the current 'obvious' test, and if you can prove it doesn't pass the 'obvious' test, then you've just proved that it's not 'novel'.))
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Standard disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, less a Supreme Court expert, but I am a former patent examiner.
The the definitive previous case by the SCOTUS on the interpretation of obviousness is GRAHAM v. JOHN DEERE CO. in which the Court basically concluded that the 1952 enactment of section 103 of the patent statute was basically a codification of a line of judicial opinions going back into the 19th century (with the exception of a 1941 Supreme Court opinion that appeared to introduce a "flash of genius" test that the new law seemed to overrule in the last sentence of section 103). The "test" that this article mentions is the "suggestion" and "motivation" showings that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and its predecessor, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) developed since the Graham decision was handed down in 1969.
The CCPA only controlled appeals from the PTO, which, of course, affected what claims would be allowed. When the issued patents were challenged by accused infringers, the appeals were decided by the regular Federal Circuit courts, which didn't follow the CCPA. In 1982, responding to complaints from patentees that the law was not uniformly applied the CAFC was formed by merging the CCPA with another court and was given exclusive appellate jurisdiction for all patent appeals, and they took their view of obviousness with them.
Now, usually the SCOTUS is pursuaded to review areas of law where there is a diversion of opinions on the law among the various federal circuits; here, there is, by the exclusive CAFC jurisdiction only one, yet the case was selected for review. I haven't seen a transcript of the hearing; it is still possible that the CAFC's "suggestion/motivation" test will survive and this case will be decided narrowly on the facts of the case, but it looks like, even if they do survive it will be in a less severe form than has been.
However, even if they strike down the CAFC's standard I don't think there will be a big impact on the quality of patents being issued, other factors being equal, since the main problem is the often that the prior art made of record is inadequate. Nevertheless, it would be easier to make sustainable rejections, since more prior art references will be available.
Comment removed based on user account deletion