KSR v. Teleflex | |
---|---|
Argued November 28, 2006 Decided April 30, 2007 | |
Full case name | KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al. |
Docket no. | 04-1350 |
Citations | 550 U.S. 398 (more) |
Case history | |
Prior | Summary judgment granted for Defendant, 298 F. Supp. 2d 581 (E.D. Mich. 2003); rev'd, 119 F. App'x 282 (Fed. Cir. 2005); cert. granted, 547 U.S. 902 (2006). |
Subsequent | Affirming district court judgment, 228 F. App'x 988 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 20, 2007) (unpublished opinion) |
Holding | |
The Federal Circuit erred in rigidly applying the narrow teaching/suggestion/motivation standard for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, for precluding application of "obvious to try" considerations, and for too rigidly constricting the use of hindsight, in conflict with the broader obviousness evaluation established in Graham. Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Majority | Kennedy, joined by unanimous |
Laws applied | |
35 U.S.C. § 103 |
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the issue of obviousness as applied to patent claims.[1]