Adj Gas Pedals = Tougher US Patent Law
#1
05-01-2007, 04:06 PM
Adj Gas Pedals = Tougher US Patent Law
Ruling toughens patent process By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY Tue May 1, 7:08 AM ET[/i].
[/i] [/align] WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court made it harder Monday for inventors to get patents on works that build on previous inventions. The court also offered new protection for software makers against infringement claims for exports.
The decisions in two closely watched patent cases continue a recent court pattern of clarifying patent law and suggesting limits on when inventors can win exclusive rights to make and sell an item.
The first case, KSR International v. Teleflex, testing when a work is truly new and worthy of patent, is likely to be more significant. In a unanimous decision, the justices made clear that they believe standards for patents have become too loose, blurring distinctions between innovations that are "ordinary" and truly "extraordinary." They ruled that the lower court specializing in patents should be more open to challengers who claim a work should not have been patented because it was too "obvious" in light of prior works. "Granting patent protection to advances that would occur in the ordinary course without real innovation retards progress and may … deprive prior inventions of their value or utility," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court. The case involves two manufacturers of adjustable gas pedals.
It began when Teleflex accused KSR International of violating one of its patents.
KSR countered that Teleflex never should have gotten a patent on the pedal in question because it was "obvious," based on other works. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled KSR failed to make a sufficient case for "obviousness." Invoking a long-standing test, the court said KSR did not show existing technology would naturally have led to the Teleflex gas-pedal device. Monday, the court said the Federal Circuit was too rigidly applying its test and that Teleflex's sensor could have been developed by a person of "ordinary skill." The ruling could have an immediate impact on patent applications. "The decision gives our examiners more flexibility to use their considerable technical skills to reject obvious changes to existing technology," says Jon Dudas, director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark office.Contributing: Byron Acohido in Seattle [/align][/align]
[/i] [/align] WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court made it harder Monday for inventors to get patents on works that build on previous inventions. The court also offered new protection for software makers against infringement claims for exports.
The decisions in two closely watched patent cases continue a recent court pattern of clarifying patent law and suggesting limits on when inventors can win exclusive rights to make and sell an item.
The first case, KSR International v. Teleflex, testing when a work is truly new and worthy of patent, is likely to be more significant. In a unanimous decision, the justices made clear that they believe standards for patents have become too loose, blurring distinctions between innovations that are "ordinary" and truly "extraordinary." They ruled that the lower court specializing in patents should be more open to challengers who claim a work should not have been patented because it was too "obvious" in light of prior works. "Granting patent protection to advances that would occur in the ordinary course without real innovation retards progress and may … deprive prior inventions of their value or utility," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court. The case involves two manufacturers of adjustable gas pedals.
It began when Teleflex accused KSR International of violating one of its patents.
KSR countered that Teleflex never should have gotten a patent on the pedal in question because it was "obvious," based on other works. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled KSR failed to make a sufficient case for "obviousness." Invoking a long-standing test, the court said KSR did not show existing technology would naturally have led to the Teleflex gas-pedal device. Monday, the court said the Federal Circuit was too rigidly applying its test and that Teleflex's sensor could have been developed by a person of "ordinary skill." The ruling could have an immediate impact on patent applications. "The decision gives our examiners more flexibility to use their considerable technical skills to reject obvious changes to existing technology," says Jon Dudas, director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark office.Contributing: Byron Acohido in Seattle [/align][/align]