United States: Trying A Patent Validity Case In A Post-KSR World

Last Updated: July 16 2007
Article by Keith L. Slenkovich

On April 30, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its most recent patent decision: KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007), in which it rejected what it deemed to be a "rigid" and "narrow" test for determining the validity of a patent. Following the decision, it was widely reported that the KSR opinion would render patents more prone to invalidity challenges on the basis of obviousness. However, based on the author's experience in a recent case in which patent validity was raised as the principal defense to our client's infringement claim, it is clear that the practical impact of KSR can be contained if appropriate strategies are employed at trial.

In KSR, a unanimous decision authored by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court held that an "expansive and flexible approach" must now be used in patent validity challenges based on obviousness, explaining that, "[r]igid preventive rules that deny fact-finders recourse to common sense… are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it."

Under United States Code, Title 35, Section 103, a patent is invalid if it would have been obvious to a person of "ordinary skill" in the technology to which the invention pertains at the time the invention was made. In order to prove a patent is obvious, the party challenging the patent must use written information that predated the invention ("prior art"), usually in the form of earlier patents or technical articles, to show that the patent claims were obvious. Unlike "anticipation" challenges under Section 102 (which require that each element of a patent claim be disclosed in a single piece of prior art), a party challenging the validity of a patent claim as "obvious" under Section 103 is allowed to combine different items of prior art-which may disclose different elements within the challenged patent claim-to prove obviousness.

For many years before the KSR decision, the federal courts had applied a test that no patent could be found "obvious" (and thus invalid) unless there was some prior "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" indicating how the prior art could be combined to make the invention obvious. The "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" test, described as the "TSM test" by the Supreme Court in KSR, effectively required that the prior art being relied on to challenge the validity of a patent claim set forth some explicit suggestion, or "motivation," to combine the different pieces of prior art.

According to the Supreme Court in KSR, this test was unnecessarily rigid and conflicted with the Court's earlier decision in Graham v. John Deere, Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966). In KSR, the Supreme Court held that strict application of the TSM test impermissibly prevented judges and juries from applying their common sense in deciding the obviousness issue. According to the Supreme Court, "any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent" should be allowed to "provide a reason for combining" the prior art to show obviousness of the invention. As the Supreme Court in KSR explained, "[c]ommon sense teaches… that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." According to the KSR Court:

When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely not the product of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.

The Supreme Court also noted, however, that there is no "necessary inconsistency between the idea underlying the TSM test and the Graham analysis," so long as the court or jury does not restrict itself to relying on only the "precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged [patent] claim." The Supreme Court found that it may still be "important to identify a reason" for combining prior art references to invalidate a patent:

Although common sense directs one to look with care at a patent application that claims as innovation the combination of two known devices according to their established functions, it can be important to identify a reason that would have promoted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.

In Graham, which the KSR decision identified as the principal underpinning for its holding, the Supreme Court had set forth a list of "secondary considerations of non-obviousness" to assist in making patent validity determinations related to obviousness. These "secondary considerations of non-obviousness," also referred to as the "Graham factors" or "objective indicators of non-obviousness," include:

  • Commercial success of products covered by the patent claims;
  • A long-felt need for the invention;
  • Failed attempts by others to make the invention;
  • Copying of the invention by others;
  • Unexpected results achieved by others;
  • Praise of the invention;
  • The taking of licenses under the patent by others;
  • Expressions of surprise by experts at the making of the invention; and
  • That the patentee proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art.1

By recognizing the continuing viability of the Graham factors in a patent validity analysis, the Supreme Court's decision in KSR does not have the punch it otherwise might have had. Specifically, while the KSR Court held that "design need or market pressure to solve a problem" can supply the impetus for combining two or more items of prior art to solve a problem, this same market need is closely akin to the "long felt need" that, under Graham, represents an objective indicator of non-obviousness. In other words, to the extent an invalidity expert claims "one with skill in the art" would have been motivated to combine two prior art references under Section 102 because of a "design need or market pressure to solve a problem," the expert must then explain why that "design need or market pressure to solve a problem" instantaneously appeared just before the claimed invention. If the expert cannot, the expert becomes exposed to the argument that "design need or market pressure to solve a problem" actually represents an "objective indicator of non-obviousness," i.e., a long felt need for the invention.

These issues played out in a recent post-KSR trial in which obviousness was raised by the defendant as the principal defense to the patent claims in suit. The trial court included in its obviousness jury instruction the following standard from the just-issued KSR decision:

In order to support a conclusion of obviousness, there must be a suggestion or motivation to combine the teachings of the prior art. This suggestion or motivation to combine the teachings of the prior art may be derived from the prior art itself, from the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or from the nature of the problem to be solved. In that regard, you should not look only at the problem the patentee was trying to solve. Any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason to combine the elements in the manner claimed.

Celerity v. Ultra Clean Technologies, No. 05-CV-04374 MMC (N.D. CA June 25, 2007). However, recognizing the continuing viability of the Graham factors as directed in the KSR decision, the trial judge also instructed that the jury consider the Graham objective indicators of non-obviousness, which included: (1) commercial success of products covered by the patent claims, (2) a long-felt need for the invention, and (3) failure by others.

During the trial, the KSR-related evidence played out as follows: During direct examination, the defendant's invalidity expert relied heavily on the KSR notion that "design need or market pressure to solve a problem" could supply the motivation to combine prior art references to render a patent claim obvious. With respect to each patent claim challenged on this basis, the invalidity expert testified that the motivation to combine elements from various prior art patents had been supplied by the general need within the market for the invention. However, during cross-examination of defendant's invalidity expert, the expert admitted that this "design need or market pressure to solve a problem" had been in existence the entire time the expert had worked in the relevant industry, and therefore demonstrated a "long-felt need for the invention." This, of course, represented an admission from defendant's invalidity expert of the second "objective indicator of non-obviousness," i.e., a long-felt need for the invention. Following additional proof to support the other Graham factors, the jury rejected each of the defendant's invalidity challenges, finding infringement and upholding the validity of each of the patent claims in suit. Id.

While the impact of the KSR decision on validity challenges may be mitigated by the continuing viability of the Graham factors, there can be no question that companies accused of patent infringement now have more flexibility in defending a lawsuit on grounds that a patent claim was obvious and therefore invalid. The new Supreme Court rule, in the hands of a skillful advocate, provides a potent new weapon to a defendant in a patent infringement action, making it more important than ever to have experienced patent trial counsel who can effectively marshal the technological and legal arguments to either prove, or counter, such a defense.

The KSR decision does not, however, mean that patent claims are necessarily doomed to invalidity findings on the basis of obviousness. Because of the presumption that patents are valid, obviousness challenges still require that the defendant prove obviousness by clear and convincing evidence, the highest burden of proof in the civil law. Classic arguments to protect a patent's validity, such as the fact that the prior art "teaches away from the claimed invention," as well as Graham factors of non-obviousness-such as commercial success, long-felt need, and failure by others-have become even more important to defending an attack on a patent's validity. Armed with appropriate trial strategies, KSR does not represent an insurmountable obstacle to validating a patent claim over a defense that the patented invention was obvious.

Footnote

1. Not all of these factors were explicitly identified in the Graham decision. The objective indicators listed in Graham were: (1) commercial success; (2) long-felt but unsolved needs; and (3) failure of others. See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Other objective indicators have been identified by courts following Graham. See Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 697-98 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (considering skepticism or disbelief before the invention as an indicator of non-obviousness); Allen Archery, Inc. v. Browning Mfg. Co., 819 F.2d 1087, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (considering copying, praise, unexpected results, and industry acceptance as indicators of non-obviousness); Diversitech Corp. v. Century Steps, Inc., 850 F.2d 675, 679 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (considering copying as an indicator of non-obviousness); see also, Federal Circuit Bar Association Model Patent Jury Instruction 10.9.4 (listing all objective indicators).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Keith L. Slenkovich
 
In association with
Related Video
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
Accounting and Audit
Anti-trust/Competition Law
Consumer Protection
Corporate/Commercial Law
Criminal Law
Employment and HR
Energy and Natural Resources
Environment
Family and Matrimonial
Finance and Banking
Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences
Government, Public Sector
Immigration
Insolvency/Bankruptcy, Re-structuring
Insurance
Intellectual Property
International Law
Law Practice Management
Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
Privacy
Real Estate and Construction
Strategy
Tax
Transport
Wealth Management
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.