2/4/11 : KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. (kyergler)
From Bill Goodwine's WikiJump to navigationJump to search
- District Court ruled in summary judgement, meaning Teleflex presented their claim of infringement of their patent, then KSR counters Teleflex's argument on account of lack of proving anything. Apparently that's summary judgement
- The case was only about the non-obviousness/obviousness of Claim 4 (not the entire patent).
- District Court - summary judgement in favor of KSR
- Court of Appeals - judgement in favor of Teleflex (TSM test)
- Supreme Court - judgement in favor of KSR
- TSM Test (teaching, suggesting, motivation test)
TSM test was the Court of Appeals' way to make the question of "obviousness" a set of clear and simple rules (TSM implies obviousness, but not-TSM does NOT imply non-obviousness)
- Claim 4 was rejected, but there could be other parts of the patent that Teleflex could file infringement suits against KSR. At the end of the case, the case goes back down to the District Court (I think).