What were the implications of KSR International vs. Teleflex?

For this blog, I looked at an analysis of the KSR International vs. Teleflex case that we had discussed at the end of class on Monday 3/17, which was published by the John Marshall Law School in 2007. As a landmark case in determining what it means to be obvious, it was informative in helping to see what the grey areas might be in defining obviousness.

Some of the more interesting points that the analysis touched on are as follows:

·        What impact the Supreme Court’s KSR decision has on district courts’ processes to decide obviousness challenges. It could be read to suggest that the Supreme Court and the lowerfederal courts may have different ideas concerning how obviousness should be decided as a procedural matter

·        What obviousness can be defined by. The article cites potential sources of information as the scope and content of the prior art, differences between the prior art and the patent claims, and the level of ordinary skill in the relevant field. It also expounds on secondary considerations.

·        When permitting the jury to decide the question of obviousness is wrong. The article’s authors suggest that the ultimate judgment of obviousness is a legal determination, and that the court is to make various determinations. Its most extensive discussion is as follows: “Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.”

The article recommends that the best way to “tee up” an obviousness case is for either the defendant or plaintiff to move for summary judgment. The court will either grant the motion, in which case there will be no trial on obviousness, or deny the motion, in which case it must in theory have done so because there are disputed issues of underlying fact. The article then elaborates on what might happen in either of these scenarios: if the motion is denied, each side should determine what factual issues are identified as being in dispute, and from there decide whether to propose jury questions or a general verdict.

I think this article did a great job discussing the implications of obviousness decisions for court cases. We had yet to determine what they might be for plaintiffs and defendants in such cases, and how the logistics of those suits might play out. One thing that I would like to learn more about is what the next steps that a defendant or plaintiff in a case that argues obviousness might be, both in and out of court, as we have yet to discuss this.

I further discuss my thoughts on this topic at the following link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbH7xw-JDec