KSR vs. TeleflexKSR vs. Teleflex

IEOR 190G

Simon Xu

Defendant: KSR Intl.Defendant: KSR Intl.

Manufacturing of All Pedal Systems

• Adjustable and fixed pedal modules

• Foot and hand-operated brakes

• Electronic throttle controls

• Electronic sensors

Plaintiff: Teleflex Inc.Plaintiff: Teleflex Inc.

Diversified Global Company

• Medical

• Aerospace

• Commercial

Technical Technical BackgroundBackground

Vehicle ControlPedal and Sensor

Computer

Throttle

Sends Signal to

Controls

Technical Technical BackgroundBackground

Butterfly Valve Throttle

The PatentThe Patent

The PatentThe Patent

Claim 4. A vehicle control pedal apparatus (12) comprising:a support (18) adapted to be mounted to a vehicle structure (20);an adjustable pedal assembly (22) having a pedal arm (14) moveable in force and aft directions with respect to said support (18);a pivot (24) for pivotally supporting said adjustable pedal assembly (22) with respect to said support (18) and defining a pivot axis (26); andan electronic control (28) attached to said support (18) for controlling a vehicle system;said apparatus (12) characterized by said electronic control (28) being responsive to said pivot (24) for providing a signal (32) that corresponds to pedal arm position as said pedal arm (14) pivots about said pivot axis (26) between rest and applied positions wherein the position of said pivot (24) remains constant while said pedal arm (14) moves in fore and aft directions with respect to said pivot (24).

The PatentThe Patent

The PatentThe Patent

The CaseThe Case

DISTRICT COURT

• Ruling: Favor KSR

• Basis: Section 103APPEALS COURT

• Ruling: Favor Teleflex

• Basis: TSM TestSUPREME COURT

• Ruling: Favor KSR

• Basis: Section 103

The CaseThe Case

How long did it take?

2002: Teleflex sues KSR

2002: KSR counters

2003: District rules in favor of KSR

2005: Federal Appeals overrules

2007: Supreme Court reverses

2002

““Obviousness”Obviousness”

Title 35 USC Section 103

A patent may not be obtained though the invention […] if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.

• Graham vs. Deere

““Obviousness”Obviousness”

TSM Test

• there must be a suggestion or teaching in the prior art to combine elements shown in the prior art in order to find a patent obvious

““Obviousness”Obviousness”

Supreme Court:

• Narrow and rigid application of TSM test

• “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not a automaton.”

ImplicationsImplications

• Application of the TSM Test

• PHOSITA

• KSR vs. Teleflex cited in about 60% of decisions related to obviousness (reversal rates still the same)