|
DISCUSSION PAPER |
| |
Discussion on Teaching, Suggestion and Motivation test
|
|
Introduction |
|
|
The US Supreme Court is now poised to
decide KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc, a case that can
change the contours of non-obviousness requirement. The
question in the case involves the validity of the teaching
-suggestion and motivation test that is being used by the
Federal Circuit to determine non-obviousness. The validity and
value of the test is now being debated among intellectual
property circles all over the world. |
|
Kalyan |
|
|
The Teaching, Suggestion and Motivation
test has to be retained.
Non-obviousness requirement is considered
by judges as meta-physics of meta-physics due the
complications involved in its determination. Lot of aspects
under non-obviousness such as state of the art, level of
ordinary skill, mode of prior art combination and so on are
very subjective and give rise to numerous ambiguities. As a
result non-obviousness requirement is highly litigated.
The Teaching, Suggestion and Motivation test brings in a
certain amount of clarity to non-obviousness determination
by making the 'combination of prior art' aspect objective.
It brings in a clear logic to combine prior art. Removal of
the test would result in making the non-obviousness
determination open and uncertain. |
|
|
Ashwini |
|
|
The Teaching, Suggestion and Motivation test
should be retained for the following reasons:
The Teaching, Suggestion and Motivation test being used for
the last 20 years is ingrained in the patent law and has
succeeded. The test is a system used to follow the Graham
framework. This test has proved to be a useful and appropriate
method to test non-obviousness. It ensures that the judge does
not single out remote factors from obviousness. Obviousness
cannot be affirmed upon what was indefinite at the time of the
invention and so the test is reasonable enough. A balance of
interest is brought between that of the patentees and the
public in general. Such a balance is brought by counteracting
hindsight biases which would have otherwise lead courts to
invalidate patents that are legitimate as obvious while
remaining supple enough to throw out patents that do not
deserve protection. Since obviousness is deceptive in
hindsight, without such a test almost everything would be
considered as obvious. Thus, if such a test is rejected and is
not replaced by some other test then it would be likely that
getting patents would be a difficult job while invalidating
them would be easier. |
|
Aishwarya |
|
The Teaching, Suggestion and Motivation
test must be retained.
The Teaching, Suggestion and Motivation
test has a multitude of positive aspects to it. Firstly,
it adopts strong measures in order to fairly evaluate new
inventions which claim to be patented. Unlike any other,
this test provides fool-proof evaluation procedure for
upcoming technology, which might otherwise get
undeservedly suppressed. This test gives inventors the
rightful encouragement and incentives for furthering the
industry in which they have expertise. It provides a class
for understanding technology better, increasing scope of
market and evolution. Further, the test addresses a
certain procedure to be followed while evaluating a patent
application/invention, which morally is something the
invention deserves, as it is something that has been the
result of strong method and procedure and efforts from the
inventor in question. |
|
|
Kartik |
|
|
The Teaching, Suggestion and Motivation
test should be modified.
As all of us are aware, majority of the inventions are
improvements over the existing technology. Coming up with
such improvements requires considerable
amount of research and effort. If the test for ascertaining
non-obviousness of the invention were strictly implemented,
then only break through inventions would be granted a
patent. Improvement inventions would be deprived of patent
protection. Promoting research being the objective behind
granting a patent, the test laid down is contradictory to
the objective. Hence, the test laid down for ascertaining
non-obviousness should be modified. |
|
Vijay |
|
|
The Teaching, Suggestion and Motivation
test should be continued because it would stop all frivolous
patents. |
| |
|
|
