Our friendly neighborhood Supreme Court is having some fun discussing the current legal definition of “patent obviousness.” It sounds like there were some entertaining snippets in the conversation as the Supreme Court considers rewriting it. A change here would have a wide ranging impact which – in my mind – based on my previously stated view on software patents - would be a hugely positive thing. At the minimum, it’s provocative to think about the potential impact. The best line of the day – offered apparently with complete ironic intent – appears to be Chief Justice Roberts asking an attorney: “Who do you get to be an expert to tell us something’s not obvious? The least insightful person you can find?”
Posted in: PatentsCOMMENTS (1)
I read the Supreme Court briefs. I’m pretty sure that the status quo will prevail. One side wants to scrap the present system in favor of “?”, that is, they offer no coherent substitute. On the other side, you have 40 years of precedence, the fact that the European and Japanese PTO do essentially the same thing, the support of all the patent bars, and the fact that making a substantial change would open up essentially every granted patent to further litigation. I think that this will be a pretty easy call.
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)