Our Patent Litigation team is a proud partner to the world’s most innovative life sciences and technology companies. Our experience successfully handling high-stakes patent matters, joined with Paul, Weiss's legendary litigation capabilities, enable us to provide comprehensive strategies to protect our clients’ most valuable innovations that extend well beyond traditional patent litigation.
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.