The Obviousness Requirement in the Patent Law
نویسندگان
چکیده
In this debate, Professor R. Polk Wagner, of Penn, and Professor Katherine J. Strandburg, of DePaul University College of Law, consider the merits (and demerits) of one doctrinal approach to the socalled “obviousness” requirement in patent law—the “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” (TSM) test. In Wagner’s view, “even with its imperfections, the law and policy of the TSM analysis, done right, offers the best opportunity to bring predictability, transparency, and rigor to what is, at the end of the day, the enormously difficult task of quantifying what the patent law rewards as invention.” For reasons she explains, Strandburg maintains that “the current version of the TSM test” is not the “‘best available’ means of assessing obviousness” and argues for the abolition of the TSM requirement in favor of other alternatives.
منابع مشابه
“genius of Art
2 as a critical element of the United States patent system. The requirement mandates that, at the time of invention, an invention must not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In effect, this screens routine improvements out of the patent system and rewards inventions perceived to be scientific breakthroughs. Recent Supreme Court cases developing non-obviousness highl...
متن کاملKSR v. Teleflex. Part 1: Impact of U.S Supreme Court Patent Law on Canadian intellectual property and regulatory rights landscape.
In KSR, SCOTUS retooled the standard for obviousness to bring it back in line with the court's previous decisions in Hotchkiss and Graham. A comparative review of the law of obviousness in the United States and Canada, and its relation to innovation and competition, was undertaken in Sections II and III. The focal point of observed differences is the inherent creativity and inventiveness of the...
متن کاملRule reasoning for legal norm validation of FSTP facts
Extended Abstract Non-obviousness or inventive step is a general requirement for patentability in most patent law systems. An invention should be at an adequate distance beyond its prior art in order to be patented. Fulfilling a minimum measurement limit would enable a patent applicant to have its invention patented. Based on this fact, we proposed a method for nonobviousness analysis of a pate...
متن کاملObviousness and Inventive Step -New Differences
In a paper resented at the Fordham Conference two years ago, I asked the question when considering the requirement of non-obviousness or inventive step in patent law is “what is the requirement for?”. Implicit in the question was the idea that these requirements had the same purpose. Internationally, it has been agreed that the term “non-obvious” used in the United States statute and possession...
متن کاملObviousness Inquiry after Ksr
One of the most important and delicate judicial tasks in patent law is to keep the obviousness doctrine in reasonable working order. There are several reasons why the obviousness doctrine has been the subject of frequent judicial tinkering. First, patentability doctrines interact with each other, so doctrinal alterations that seem to be entirely external to the obviousness doctrine frequently h...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2006