"Obvious" Inventions not Worthy of Patents

Patents based on combining previous inventions might become harder to obtain, thanks to the Supreme Court ruling in KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc. The ruling raises the standards for proving an invention is more than just “ordinary innovation” and “obvious” to experts in the invention’s field. In other words, if an invention is not truly new and innovative but is simply something anyone with expertise in the subject would have come up with eventually, a company or individual does not merit a patent on the invention simply for making it first. As Justice Kennedy, author of the unanimous opinion wrote, “Were it otherwise, patents might stifle, rather than promote, the progress of useful arts.”

In this case, KSR developed an adjustable gas pedal for cars and trucks. The system used an electronic sensor attached the pedal’s pivot to relay the information about pressure applied to the pedal for acceleration purposes. Teleflex sued KSR, claiming that KSR’s pedal infringed on a patent they held for a similar adjustable pedal with electronic sensor. KSR argued that Teleflex had just combined pre-existing inventions in an obvious way, and therefore the patent was invalid. The Supreme Court decided in favor of KSR, saying the Teleflex patent was an obvious upgrade of existing technology.

For more on this case, see here. Or, to see how this decision might be practically applied to a case like software patents, read here.