Comments on: Supreme Court Hears Teleflex Arguments http://techliberation.com/2006/11/28/supreme-court-hears-teleflex-arguments/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:51:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Steve R. http://techliberation.com/2006/11/28/supreme-court-hears-teleflex-arguments/comment-page-1/#comment-36185 Steve R. Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:22:18 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/11/28/supreme-court-hears-teleflex-arguments/#comment-36185 <p>I hate to be a party pooper, but I think we are overlooking a major issue. Patents should be granted to <b>devices</b> not <b>concepts</b>. Roger Parloff wrote: <i>"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."</i> This implies to me that Court will be applying the obvious test to a concept not a device.</p> <p>A combination of preexisting technologies, to me, simply <b>CANNOT</b> 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.</p> 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.

]]> By: Steve R. http://techliberation.com/2006/11/28/supreme-court-hears-teleflex-arguments/comment-page-1/#comment-54763 Steve R. Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:22:18 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/11/28/supreme-court-hears-teleflex-arguments/#comment-54763 <p>I hate to be a party pooper, but I think we are overlooking a major issue. Patents should be granted to <b>devices</b> not <b>concepts</b>. Roger Parloff wrote: <i>"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."</i> This implies to me that Court will be applying the obvious test to a concept not a device.<br><br>A combination of preexisting technologies, to me, simply <b>CANNOT</b> 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.</p> 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.

]]>