You cannot get a patent for an invention if it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time. This is as true today as it was at the founding of our nation. The reason for this rule is clear—the obviousness-bar is necessary to balance rewarding innovation with free and fair competition. The Supreme Court has observed, alluding to the Constitution’s authorization for federal patents, “[w]ere it otherwise, patents might stifle, rather than promote, the progress of useful arts.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 427 (2007). While we all agree that obvious inventions should not be patented, the devil is in the details on how to draw that line between the obvious and the nonobvious.
Recent Posts
- The Rise of IP Lawsuits When Posting Images: How to Navigate and Avoid Copyright Infringement Issues
- The SEP Couch: Lyse Brillouet on Managing SEPs and Open Standards
- Unveiling The Untapped Potential of Brazil’s Solar Energy Market
- AI Armor: Learn How to Harness AI to Invest in Your Company’s Future
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, April 19: European Court Rejects Pablo Escobar Trademark; Federal Agencies Launch Anti-Competitive Healthcare Practices Portal; and Reddit Cracks Down on Copyright Infringement