Supreme Court Hears Teleflex Arguments

by on November 28, 2006 · 2 comments

Doug Lay points out this summary of today’s oral arguments in the KSR v. Teleflex case. ZDNet’s Anne Broache has another good summary. It sounds like the argument went well for the forces of sanity:

During hour-long oral arguments in a case that’s closely watched by the business community, Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that an existing federal court test for determining patent obviousness relied too little on common sense. Justice Antonin Scalia went so far as to call the test “gobbledygook” and “meaningless.”

“It’s worse than meaningless because it complicates the question rather than focusing on the statute,” Roberts went on to say of the test, which requires evidence of a past “teaching, suggestion or motivation” that would lead to a particular invention in order for it to be declared “obvious.”

My co-blogger Solveig Singleton (along with Jim Delong) filed an excellent amicus brief in the case for PFF.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14019452 Steve R.

    I hate to be a party pooper, but I think we are overlooking a major issue. Patents should be granted to devices not concepts. Roger Parloff wrote: “In KSR, the Court must decide what standard judges should use when deciding whether a particular combination of preexisting technologies, each of which had already been in common use, can be considered sufficiently nonobvious to be patentable.” This implies to me that Court will be applying the obvious test to a concept not a device.

    A combination of preexisting technologies, to me, simply CANNOT be patentable. However, a device that utilizes the combination of preexisting technologies could be patentable. Lets assume that Company A has a device patent. A competitor using existing or new technology should be unhampered in making a device that does the same task as Company A’s device. Patent infringement would occur in the event that the competitor actually copied part of Company A’s devices design.

  • http://www2.blogger.com/profile/14380731108416527657 Steve R.

    I hate to be a party pooper, but I think we are overlooking a major issue. Patents should be granted to devices not concepts. Roger Parloff wrote: “In KSR, the Court must decide what standard judges should use when deciding whether a particular combination of preexisting technologies, each of which had already been in common use, can be considered sufficiently nonobvious to be patentable.” This implies to me that Court will be applying the obvious test to a concept not a device.

    A combination of preexisting technologies, to me, simply CANNOT be patentable. However, a device that utilizes the combination of preexisting technologies could be patentable. Lets assume that Company A has a device patent. A competitor using existing or new technology should be unhampered in making a device that does the same task as Company A’s device. Patent infringement would occur in the event that the competitor actually copied part of Company A’s devices design.

Previous post:

Next post: