The Supreme Court Redefines the Law of Obviousness: Reversing the Federal Circuit’s Decision in KSR v. Teleflex Broadens the Analysis for Determining Whether a Patent is Obvious or Nonobvious

In KSR International v. Teleflex, Inc., the United States Supreme Court overturned a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), rejecting the “rigid” application of the “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” (TSM) test used in combining references in an obviousness analysis. The Supreme Court clarified its position that an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings,” but rather “take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”

Teleflex, the exclusive licensee to the patentinsuit— which claims a mechanism for combining an electronic sensor with an adjustable automobile pedal so that the pedal’s position can be transmitted to a computer that controls the throttle in the vehicle’s engine—sued KSR for patent infringement. KSR counterclaimed alleging that claim 4 of the patentinsuit was invalid on the basis of obviousness. The district court granted summary judgment in KSR’s favor applying a Graham analysis as well as the CAFC’s TSM test. Finding that the “District Court had not been strict enough in applying the [TSM] test, having failed to make ‘finding[s] as to the specific understanding or principle within the knowledge of a skilled artisan that would have motivated one with no knowledge of [the] invention’ . . . to attach an electronic control to the support bracket of the [prior art] assembly,” the CAFC reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

For the full story, please view the PDF.