ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "KSR v. Teleflex ruling by US Supreme Court on 30 April 2007"

(External links: ** [http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/KSR_v_Teleflex/ksr_amicus.pdf By EFF] (see: EFF))
 
(19 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{navbox}}
 
 
'''KSR vs Teleflex''' was a court case at the [[US Supreme Court]].  The opinion of the court was written by [[Justice Kennedy]].
 
'''KSR vs Teleflex''' was a court case at the [[US Supreme Court]].  The opinion of the court was written by [[Justice Kennedy]].
  
Line 5: Line 4:
  
 
<blockquote>
 
<blockquote>
''combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.''
+
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
 +
 +
This decision lead to a revision of the [[USPTO]]'s examiner guidelines.<ref>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/wp-content/uploads/USPTO-examination-guidelines-published-at-72-Fed.-Reg.-57526-Oct.-10-2007.pdf</ref>
  
 
For the period 2007-2010, it was the third most cited patent case by the [[CAFC]].<ref>http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/05/top-ten-most-cited-patent-cases-2007-2010.html</ref>
 
For the period 2007-2010, it was the third most cited patent case by the [[CAFC]].<ref>http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/05/top-ten-most-cited-patent-cases-2007-2010.html</ref>
Line 29: Line 30:
  
 
{{footer}}
 
{{footer}}
[[Category:Court cases and litigation]]
+
[[Category:Court ruling analyses]]
 +
[[Category:Court rulings by US Supreme Court]]
 +
[[Category:Court rulings in the USA]]

Latest revision as of 12:37, 2 August 2012

KSR vs Teleflex was a court case at the US Supreme Court. The opinion of the court was written by Justice Kennedy.

This case raised the bar for the "obviousness" test, saying that a:

combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.

This decision lead to a revision of the USPTO's examiner guidelines.[1]

For the period 2007-2010, it was the third most cited patent case by the CAFC.[2]

External links

Press coverage

References