Today SCOTUS finally handed down its decision in KSR v. Teleflex and weighed in on the nonobviousness standard. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Kennedy, as expected, rejected the Federal Circuit’s current test for nonobviousness – whether there was a teaching, suggestion, or motivation (TSM) to combine prior art references. The TSM test does provide helpful insights into the nonobvious inquiry, however, that does not demand the application of a narrow and rigid standard. Under the new standard the court must determine whether the is more than a predictable use of the prior art elements according to their established functions. Just a preliminary post. More to come.
This is really more in the category of yesterday’s news, but NTP has gone after Palm after extorting $612.5 million from Research in Motion.
 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061106/ap_on_hi_te/ntp_palm_2
This seems to be another case dedicated to proving that our patent system needs serious help.
One of the most potent areas for innovation has always been interoperability with existing inventions. As a small example, in the ‘80s some enterprising entrepreneur came up with a cup holder which could fit next to the driver’s seat in most cars.
Theoretically, such an invention benefits everyone. Consumers get an improved product: a car with a cupholder. The entrepreneur exploits a previously unoccupied market niche – creating new value. And, the owners of the existing technology, in this case, the car manufacturers, sell more cars because their product has been enhanced.
The owner of the already existing technology, however, is not always welcoming of interoperable products. Sometimes a manufacturer bundles a proprietary technology with a previously existing technology in order to control not one but two markets. In such a case, the manufacturer is not very happy when an enterprising inventor creates an interoperable technology – and jumps in on his or her game.
Let me give a famous example. In Lexmark Intern. v. Static Control Components, Lexmark, a computer printer manufacturer, designed its printers so that only Lexmark’s printer cartridges could be used with its printers. 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004). Then, Lexmark sold the printer cartridges for high prices. In order to use a Lexmark printer, the consumer had to pay for one of Lexmark’s high-priced printer cartridges. In this way, Lexmark leveraged control of the printer market into control of the printer cartridge market.
Read more »
IP, News, Patents | admin | 
April 30, 2007 9:50 pm | 
Comments (1) 
Subscribe