KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
GPTKB entity
Statements (55)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instanceOf |
legal case
|
| gptkbp:caseTypes |
05-151
|
| gptkbp:citedBy |
550 U.S. 398
|
| gptkbp:consequences |
for innovation and patenting
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court
|
| gptkbp:date |
November 28, 2006
|
| gptkbp:decidedBy |
April 30, 2007
|
| gptkbp:doctrine |
non-obviousness standard
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
|
| gptkbp:impact |
increased scrutiny on patent applications
|
| gptkbp:is_involved_in |
gptkb:KSR_International_Co.
Teleflex_Inc. |
| gptkbp:judges |
Justice Breyer
|
| gptkbp:jurisdiction |
federal jurisdiction
|
| gptkbp:keyPeople |
unanimous decision
|
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
patent obviousness
combination of prior art can render a patent obvious |
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
law firms involved
examined the combination of known elements |
| gptkbp:legalStatus |
innovation policy
intellectual property legal precedents patent infringement legal standards court rulings patent law technology transfer patent litigation inventive step patent rights patent portfolio management patent valuation patentability prior art patent enforcement patent claims patent examination commercialization of inventions patent strategy patent law reform patent litigation trends obviousness test patent law challenges patent law developments patent law history patent law implications patent office practices patent system efficiency |
| gptkbp:outcome |
Supreme_Court_reversed_the_Federal_Circuit's_decision
|
| gptkbp:politicalParty |
gptkb:Justice_Kennedy
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
influenced future patent law cases
for obviousness determinations |
| gptkbp:relatedPatent |
gptkb:Graham_v._John_Deere_Co.
gptkb:In_re_Kahn |
| gptkbp:significance |
changed the standard for determining patent obviousness
|