Part 2- Crimes and Torts, Chapter 8: Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition, Doc 4

Summary of Key Patent Law Cases and Principles 1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. (2007) The KSR case centered on the question of "obviousness" under the Patent Act. Teleflex held a patent on an adjustable car pedal with an electronic sensor, but KSR argued that combining known elements—such as a sensor and an adjustable pedal—was an obvious solution. The lower court initially found the invention obvious, but the Court of Appeals reversed, applying the "Teaching, Suggestion, or Motivation" (TSM) test, which required explicit evidence of motivation to combine prior inventions. • • Key Findings: o Obviousness Standard: The Supreme Court rejected the rigid TSM test, emphasizing a more flexible, "common-sense" approach to obviousness. If combining known elements in a predictable way would yield expected results, the invention is likely obvious and unpatentable. o Creativity in Ordinary Skill: The Court clarified that patent law must recognize the natural creativity of skilled artisans who might intuitively combine known elements. For instance, the combination of a sensor and a pivot point on a pedal to meet market demands was deemed an expected, non-innovative step. Implications: This ruling widened the scope of what could be considered "obvious" in patent applications, preventing patents for solutions that a skilled person could predictably derive from existing knowledge. 2. Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. (2011) This case involved induced patent infringement. SEB, a French company, held a U.S. patent for a cool-touch deep fryer. Pentalpha (a Global-Tech subsidiary) copied SEB’s design from a foreign model without U.S. patent markings and sold similar fryers to U.S. companies, undercutting SEB in the market. SEB sued Pentalpha for induced infringement, arguing Pentalpha deliberately ignored the risk of infringing SEB's patent. • Key Findings: o Knowledge Requirement for Induced Infringement: The Supreme Court held that to be liable for induced infringement, a party must have actual knowledge of the patent or show "willful blindness" to the likelihood of infringement. Pentalpha's decision not to inform its attorney about copying SEB’s design was seen as evidence of deliberate avoidance of known risks. o Willful Blindness Standard: The Court upheld the finding of induced infringement based on Pentalpha’s willful ignorance, equating it with actual knowledge of SEB's patent. • Implications: This case clarified that willful blindness—intentionally ignoring obvious risks—can satisfy the knowledge requirement for induced infringement under U.S. patent law. 3. Patent Owner Rights and Infringement Defense Principles • • • Rights of Patent Owners: o Patent owners hold exclusive rights to make, use, and sell their invention within the U.S. for a set term (usually 20 years from the application date). o The owner can transfer or license these rights. However, the sale of an item licensed under a patent exhausts the owner’s rights over that particular item once sold. Infringement Types: o Direct Infringement: Occurs when someone unauthorized makes, uses, or sells the patented invention within the U.S. o Doctrine of Equivalents: Even if a product doesn’t literally infringe, it may still infringe if it performs substantially the same function in a similar way for the same result. o Induced and Contributory Infringement: Parties can be liable if they actively encourage infringement or supply components specifically intended for infringing use. Defenses: o Non-Infringement: The defendant can argue that their product does not infringe due to substantial differences. o Patent Invalidity: Defendants can argue the patent is invalid because the invention was obvious, lacked novelty, or did not meet other patentability requirements. o Exhaustion Doctrine: Once the patentee authorizes the sale of a patented item, they cannot claim infringement against the purchaser's subsequent use of the item. Conclusion: These cases reinforce fundamental principles in patent law, emphasizing that innovation must be non-obvious and that “willful blindness” can fulfill the knowledge requirement for induced infringement. The rulings ensure that patents are awarded for genuine advances, not merely predictable combinations of prior knowledge, while also delineating the responsibilities of parties to be vigilant in avoiding infringement.