Supreme Court Signals Shift in Obviousness Standard
Client Alert | 2 min read | 12.19.06
A recent oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court may be signaling a shift in the patent landscape towards increased difficulty in obtaining patents and more frequent invalidity findings in court actions. Why the concern? For over twenty years, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has applied a "teaching-suggestion-motivation" test (referred to as "TSM") in evaluating whether a claimed invention is obvious. The continuing viability of the TSM test was recently argued in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. If the questions and comments from the Justices at oral argument are any guide, the TSM test is in serious jeopardy.
During the oral argument in KSR, the Justices focused much of their attention on the "motivation" prong of the TSM test. Under the current formulation of the test, a patent examiner making a rejection or someone challenging a patent in litigation must show a motivation to combine individual elements that are otherwise disclosed in prior art in a way that results in the claimed invention. The Justices raised concerns about what the "motivation" requirement really means and whether it can be effectively applied to particular cases, and they went on to question whether the TSM test should be the exclusive test for combining prior art references to show obviousness. At a broader policy level, the Court acknowledged criticism that the U.S. patent system was issuing too many patents but was circumspect about whether it - rather than Congress - should address the "problem." At the same time, the Court was mindful that changing the obviousness standard could significantly impact the many patents issued under the current standard, effectively stripping away the statutory presumption of validity that pre-KSR patents currently enjoy.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule in early 2007. If the Court overturns or modifies the TSM test, as many observers expect, patent seekers may have to focus their resources on patent applications best able to withstand a likely obviousness challenge, in addition to beefing up their patent prosecution budgets to reflect a tougher landscape for obtaining patents. Just as importantly, accused infringers will be better positioned to challenge the validity of issued patents in court. In any event, patent owners and applicants, companies faced with infringement risks, and the patent bar all will be anxiously awaiting the Supreme Court's decision.
Click for a copy of the oral argument transcript.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 8 min read | 10.01.25
On September 29, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced a sweeping Interim Final Rule (IFR), (the “Affiliates Rule”) expanding which entities qualify as Entity List or Military End-User entities, thereby subjecting those entities to elevated export control restrictions under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). U.S. export restrictions applicable to entities on the Entity List, Military End-User (MEU) List, and Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) now apply to foreign affiliates that are, in the aggregate, owned 50% or more by one or more of the aforementioned entities. An entity that becomes subject to these restrictions because of its ownership structure will be subject to the most restrictive controls that attach to any of its parent entities, regardless of ownership stakes.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 09.30.25
CARB Issues Preliminary List of Entities Covered by California Climate Disclosure Laws
Client Alert | 10 min read | 09.30.25
Client Alert | 7 min read | 09.29.25
White House Seeks Industry Input on Laws and Rules that Hinder AI Development