{"id":3165,"date":"2018-03-21T09:20:34","date_gmt":"2018-03-21T13:20:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/entrepreneurlaw\/?p=3165"},"modified":"2018-03-21T09:21:02","modified_gmt":"2018-03-21T13:21:02","slug":"3165","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/entrepreneurlaw\/2018\/03\/21\/3165\/","title":{"rendered":"KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc."},"content":{"rendered":"

I found this case<\/a> while searching for recent tendencies in the Supreme Court’s holdings regarding patent protection. In KSR International Co. v.<\/span> Teleflex Inc., the Supreme Court overthrows a Federal Circuit decision on how to determine “obviousness” of a new invention, thereby rejecting the Federal Circuit’s test and establishing a new “common sense” standard. The Supreme Court’s standard for obviousness is lower, hence, makes it easier to challenge a patent.<\/p>\n

I found the case interesting, even though we haven’t discussed the specific requirements for patentability in clase, mainly due to 2 reasons:<\/p>\n

1. It is again en example where the Supreme Court is willing to reject a solution found by the Fed. Cir. to “go its own way.”<\/p>\n

2. For me, the case indicates a general tendency for lower IP protection, at least in the context of patents, which might be to some extent caused by the misuse of patents by patent trolls.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I found this case while searching for recent tendencies in the Supreme Court’s holdings regarding patent protection. In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., the Supreme Court overthrows a Federal Circuit decision on how to determine “obviousness” of a new … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2887,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3165","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/entrepreneurlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3165","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/entrepreneurlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/entrepreneurlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/entrepreneurlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2887"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/entrepreneurlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3165"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/entrepreneurlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3165\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3167,"href":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/entrepreneurlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3165\/revisions\/3167"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/entrepreneurlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3165"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/entrepreneurlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3165"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/entrepreneurlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3165"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}