Hindsight bias, the phenomenon that things seem more predictable and obvious after they have occurred, is one of the most widely-studied “decision traps” in psychology… Patent litigation plays right into such human limitations, which affect judges and jurors alike. Patents are often litigated many years after the invention was made, and very often those who are accused of patent infringement will argue that the invention was obvious at the time it was made and a patent was applied for… And we accept a surprising amount of other conjecture in this analysis. For example, judges and jurors are told about a contemporaneous hypothetical person that – despite having only ordinary skill in the relevant technology – would have had super-human knowledge of all then-existing technical information, was fluent in every language under the sun, and would have done insane things to access information sources.
The post Conjecture and Speculation in Patent Obviousness: Trading Logic for Hindsight appeared first on IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law.
Recent Posts
- Other Barks and Bites for Friday, January 17: Teva Files IRA Challenge Amid Second Round of Medicare Negotiations; Ninth Circuit Says Kinetic Sculptures Can Be Sufficiently ‘Fixed’ for Copyright; USPTO Publishes Inventorship FAQs for AI-Assisted Inventions
- USPTO Fee Report: Discounts Don’t Cut It for Incentivizing New Patent Participants
- Federal Circuit Splits on Whether Toddler Tub May Infringe
- CAFC Rules Patent Applications are Considered Pre-AIA Prior Art By Filing Date, Not Publication Date
- The Biden Administration Rolls the Dice on NIH Patent Licensing