Intellectual Property
Jun. 27, 2013
Courts fumble with broader 'obviousness' test
Although now a broader test, proving obviousness still requires providing meaningful reasons for modifying or combining the prior art to arrive at the patented invention. By Matthew Poppe and Christina Von der Ahe
The U.S. Supreme Court's KSR decision adopted an "expansive and flexible approach" for determining whether a patent is obvious and thus invalid. Patent claims that would have been found nonobvious pre-KSR may now be vulnerable to attack. However, proving obviousness still requires providing meaningful reasons for modifying or combining the prior art to arrive at the patented invention. Likewis...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In