{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

295 BQ Liput Nelson Patents 1AC

295 BQ Liput Nelson Patents 1AC - Patents 1AC DDI 2008 ...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Patents 1AC  8/2/08 DDI 2008 <BQ>    Liput-Nelson Observation 1: Inherency:  1. The KSR Decision Rejected The Long Standing Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation Test For Obviousness  Effectively Raising The Bar For Obtaining A Patent Christopher A. Harkins - Counsel, Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, Chicago, Illinois. 20 07 Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology. “FENDING OFF PAPER PATENTS AND PATENT TROLLS: A NOVEL "COLD FUSION" DEFENSE BECAUSE CHANGING TIMES DEMAND IT.” < http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do? start=2&sort=BOOLEAN&format=GNBFI&risb=21_T4185321428 > With "bad " n262 patents mired in a wave of negative publicity , the United States Supreme Court recently sounded off on the validity of weaker patents that will be sure to give patents an image makeover. In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., n263 the Court effectively invalidated a patent based on obviousness grounds, raised the bar on patentability , n264 and concomitantly lowered the boom on patent trolls wielding improvidently issued paper patents . KSR promises to create a stir in the industry by making it easier for defendants to prove invalidity, and thereby suggesting a transition of making it harder obtain (and preserve the validity of) patents based on the combination of known elements. Rejecting the Federal Circuit's rigid approach of requiring obviousness to be proven by the "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" test , n265 the Supreme Court expressed "the need for caution" in granting patents or preserving their validity 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Patents 1AC  8/2/08 DDI 2008 <BQ>    Liput-Nelson 2. The Synergistic Standard Replacing TSM Is Arbitrary, Vague, And Makes Attaining Patents Comparable To  Receiving A Nobel Prize P ATRICK G. BURNS , G REER , B URNS & C RAIN , L TD . October 2006 KSR INTERNATIONAL CO., Petitioner, v.   TELEFLEX INC. and TECHNOLOGY HOLDING CO.,  Respondents.   “BRIEF OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW  ASSOCIATION OF CHICAGO AS  AMICUS CURIAE  IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT.”  Petitioner and other opponents of the TSM standard propose abandoning the TSM standard and replacing it with a different test. The arguments include making the test whether a person of ordinary skill would have been “capable of ” making the combination,13 or whether the result was “synergistic ,”14 “wholly unexpected ,”15 reached an “extraordinary level ,”16 or was a “mere aggregation .”17 The Government suggests making the determination on a case-by-case basis.18 Each of these subjective standards is vague and arbitrary, and each has flaws which will become apparent. The suggested “capable of ” standard for proving obviousness might or might not raise the level of patentable invention, but it would surely create uncertainty. More importantly , it would undermine one of the two purposes of the patent system – prompt disclosure. The patent system rewards those who can and do, not those who can but don’t. Thus, if 1,000 people are “capable of ” combining several references to
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}