We are fortunate to advise world-class, industry-leading companies, helping them tackle novel, complex issues and push the boundaries of technological progress. Our ability and confidence to go to trial is our core strength; our deep bench of experienced trial lawyers represents companies in their most significant matters, helping them protect their intellectual property and launch products. Our lawyers pair extensive experience in the courtroom and the boardroom with a thorough understanding of science and technology.
How Obvious Is Obviousness?
May 2, 2007 Full PDF
In KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, the Supreme Court unanimously held that rigid application of a "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" (TSM) test violates the flexible approach to obviousness set forth by the Court in Graham v. John Deere and subsequent cases. The Court emphasized that the objective analysis for determining obviousness set forth in Graham (including, where appropriate, consideration of the secondary factors enumerated therein) remains the defining inquiry for applying the statutory language of 35 U.S.C. § 103. The key focus must be on determining the scope and content of the prior art and differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, in light of the level of ordinary skill in the art. In confirming its holding that the patent claim at issue was obvious, the Court noted that there was no showing of any of the secondary factors identified in Graham.