In its first application of the Supreme Court`s obviousness pronouncement in KSR v. Teleflex, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a finding of obviousness in Leapfrog v. Fisher-Price.
Leapfrog and Fisher-Price are competitors in the toy market. leapfrog sued Fisher-Price for patent infringement. The trial court found the leapfrog patent not-infringed and invalid as obvious. On appeal, the CAFC affirmed. The CAFC said that the obviousness analysis requires a common sense approach rather than any rigid formula.
“An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. See KSR Int’l
Co.v. Teleflex Inc., 550 __ (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).” U.S.
James Lindon, Ph.D. Patent Attorney
Lindon & Lindon, LLC
Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, Pharmacy Law, Litigation
[this is not legal advice - provided for discussion only]
Intellectual Property for the Individual and Small Business: Identify, Protect, Enforce, Defend.
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread."