Legal Document

127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007) KSR INTERNATIONAL CO., Petitioner, v. TELEFLEX INC. et al. No. 04-1350. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 28, 2006. Decided April 30, 2007. *1733 James W. Dabney, for petitioner. Thomas G. Hungar, the States as amicus curiae, by special leave Court, supporting C. Goldstein, respondents. John F. Duffy, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, Of Counsel, Counsel Record, New York, Stephen Rabinowitz, Henry Lebowitz, Mitchell E. Epner, Darcy M. Goddard, Attorneys Petitioner. Kenneth Bass, III, Robert Sterne, Kessler Goldstein Fox P.L.L.C., Washington, DC, Rodger D. Young, Steven Susser, David Poirier, Young P.C., Southfield, Michael A. O'Shea, Garreth Sarosi, Christopher R. Pudelski, Sarah Rispin, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld, Samuel J. Haidle, LaPrairie, Howard Howard, Attorneys, Bloomfield Hills, MI, Tracy L. Casadio, *1734 Elizabeth H. Rader, Los Angeles, CA, Brief Respondents. Justice KENNEDY delivered opinion Court. Teleflex Incorporated and its subsidiary Technology Holding Companyboth referred to here Teleflexsued International Company patent infringement. The at issue, Patent 6,237,565 B1, is entitled "Adjustable Pedal Assembly With Electronic Throttle Control." Supplemental App. 1. patentee Engelgau, "the Engelgau patent." holds exclusive license patent. Claim 4 describes a mechanism combining an electronic sensor with adjustable automobile pedal so pedal's position can be transmitted computer that controls throttle in vehicle's engine. When accused infringing adding one KSR's previously designed pedals, countered claim was invalid under Act, 35 U.S.C. § 103, because subject matter obvious. Section 103 forbids issuance when differences between sought patented prior art are such whole would have been obvious time invention made person having ordinary skill which said pertains." In Graham Deere Co. Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 86 684, 15 Ed. 2d 545 (1966), set out framework applying statutory language itself based on logic earlier decision Hotchkiss Greenwood, 11 How. 248, 13 683 (1851), progeny. See U.S., 15-17, 684. analysis objective: "Under scope content determined; claims issue ascertained; level pertinent resolved. Against this background obviousness or nonobviousness determined. Such secondary considerations commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure others, etc., might utilized give light circumstances surrounding origin patented." Id., 17-18, While sequence these questions reordered any particular case, factors continue define inquiry controls. If court, examiner, conducts concludes claimed obvious, 103. Seeking resolve question more uniformity consistency, Appeals Federal Circuit has employed approach parties "teaching, suggestion, motivation" test (TSM test), only proved if "some motivation suggestion combine teachings" found art, nature problem, knowledge art. See, e.g., Al-Site Corp. VSI Int'l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1323-1324 (C.A.Fed.1999). challenges *1735 test, least application case. 119 Fed.Appx. 282, 286-290 (C.A.Fed.2005). Because addressed manner contrary our precedents, we granted certiorari, 547 ___, 126 2965, 165 949 (2006). We now reverse. I A car engines without computer-controlled throttles, accelerator interacts via cable other mechanical link. arm acts lever rotating around pivot point. cable-actuated control rotation caused pushing down pulls cable, turn open valves carburetor fuel injection unit. wider open, air released, causing combustion increase accelerate. driver takes his foot off pedal, opposite occurs released slide closed. 1990's it became common install computers cars engine operation. Computer-controlled throttles close response signals, not through force transferred from Constant, delicate adjustments mixture possible. computer's rapid processing beyond improves efficiency performance. For respond driver's operation car, must know what happening pedal. link does suffice purpose; some point, necessary translate into digital data understand. Before discussing sensors further design itself. traditional pushed cannot footwell adjusted sliding forward back. As result, who wishes closer farther either reposition himself seat move way. deep footwells imperfect solutions drivers smaller stature. To solve inventors, beginning 1970's, pedals could change their location footwell. Important case two disclosed Nos. 5,010,782 (filed July 1989) (Asano) 5,460,061 Sept. 17, 1993) (Redding). Asano reveals support structure houses even relative driver, points stays fixed. also push same regardless location. Redding different, where both point adjusted. return sensors. Well before applied challenged patent, inventors had obtained patents involving throttles. These inventions, device 5,241,936 9, 1991) ('936), taught preferable detect assembly, '936 assembly. 5,063,811 1990) (Smith) prevent *1736 wires connecting chafing wearing out, avoid grime damage foot, should put fixed part assembly rather than footpad. addition integrated self-contained modular independently given taken shelf attached various sorts, enabling used automobiles One 5,385,068 Dec. 18, 1992) ('068). 1994, Chevrolet manufactured line trucks using "attached bracket, adjacent engaged shaft about rotates operation." 298 Supp. 581, 589 (E.D.Mich.2003). contained placement well. example, 5,819,593 Aug. 1995) (Rixon) discloses detecting position. Rixon located known suffer wire depressed released. This short account technology leads instant B KSR, Canadian company, manufactures supplies auto parts, including systems. Ford Motor hired 1998 supply system lines developed 6,151,976 16, 1999) ('976) design. 2000, chosen General Motors Corporation (GMC GM) systems GMC make '976 compatible trucks, merely took added sensor. rival manufacture pedals. noted, licensee filed August 22, 2000 continuation previous 6,109,241, January 26, 1999. He sworn he invented patent's February 14, 1998. described specification "simplified vehicle less expensive, uses fewer parts easier package within vehicle." col. 2, 2-5, 6. here, describes: "A apparatus comprising: adapted mounted structure; moveable for[e] aft directions respect support; pivotally defining axis; controlling system; characterized being responsive providing signal corresponds pivots *1737 axis rest positions wherein remains constant while moves fore pivot." 6, 17-36, 8 (diagram numbers omitted). agree District "a position-adjustable member Attaching allows remain adjusts pedal." F.Supp.2d, 586-587. issuing Trademark Office (PTO) rejected similar to, broader than, present 4. did include requirement placed PTO concluded combination Smith, explaining: "`Since ar[t] references field endeavor, purpose . recognized Redding. Therefore provide means Smith.'" 595. words provided example Smith explained how mount structure, teachings together. Although rejected, later allowed included limitation distinguished Redding's. Ibid. among references, mentioned prosecution. Thus, issued May 29, 2001 assigned Teleflex. Upon learning GM, sent warning letter informing proposal violate "`Teleflex believes supplier product combines necessarily employs covered more'" Teleflex's patents. 585. refused enter royalty arrangement Teleflex; sued infringement, asserting infringed abandoned regarding dedicated public. remaining contention GM argued three nor C summary judgment favor. After reviewing history design, relevant court considered validity contested claim. By direction presumed valid. Graham's determine whether summary-judgment standards overcome presumption demonstrated existence *1738 invented. 102(a). determined, expert testimony parties' stipulations, "`an undergraduate degree engineering (or equivalent amount industry experience) [and] familiarity vehicles.'" 590. then forth designs above. Following direction, compared Engelgau. It "little difference." everything except use transmit throttle. That additional aspect revealed sources '068 Chevrolet. Under cases Circuit, however, permitted stop there. required apply TSM test. held satisfied reasoned (1) state lead inevitably combinations (2) basis developments, (3) solution problems Rixon, namely locating Asano, like it, conclusion supported, Court's view, PTO's rejection version Had application, reasoned, Smith. final matter, factor success Engelgau's alter conclusion. KSR. principal reliance reversed. ruled strict enough failed "`finding[s] specific understanding principle skilled artisan motivated no [the] invention' attach bracket assembly." Fed.Appx., 288 (brackets original) (quoting re Kotzab, 217 1365, 1371 (C.A.Fed.2000)). incorrect problem solved unless "prior address[ed] precise trying solve," motivate inventor look those references. 288. Here, found, "`constant ratio problem'"that is, ensure depress adjustedwhereas simpler, smaller, cheaper explained, suffered it. court's view teach anything helpful purpose. turn, relate "necessarily go *1739 were interpreted way, held, they led sort Asano. try likewise irrelevant, "`"[o]bvious try" constitute obviousness.'" 289 Deuel, 51 1552, 1559 (C.A.Fed.1995)). faulted consideration role, speculate done Rather, obliged first presume valid render own independent review fact 4, said, place analysis. genuine issues material precluded judgment. proffered statements "`was simple, elegant, novel features,'" 290, another nonobvious because, unlike evidence, concluded, sufficed require trial. II begin rejecting rigid Appeals. Throughout engagement obviousness, expansive flexible inconsistent way here. sure, need "uniformity definiteness." Yet principles laid reaffirmed "functional approach" Hotchkiss, 683. 12, end, broad invited courts, appropriate, prove instructive. Neither enactment disturbed instructions concerning caution granting elements over half century, "patent unites old respective functions obviously withdraws already monopoly diminishes resources available skillful men." Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 147, 152, 71 127, 95 162 (1950). reason declining allow familiar according methods likely yield predictable results. Three decided after illustrate doctrine. Adams, 39, 40, 708, 572 companion Graham, "wet battery" varied ways: *1740 water, acids conventionally storage batteries; electrodes magnesium cuprous chloride, zinc silver chloride. altered mere substitution element field, do result. 50-51, 708. nevertheless Government's Adams's battery relied upon corollary teaches away certain elements, discovery successful them nonobvious. 51-52, Adams battery, warned risks involved types employed. worked together unexpected fruitful supported Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 57, 90 305, 24 258 (1969), elaborated approach. pre-existing elements: radiant-heat burner paving machine. device, create new synergy: functioned just expected function; machine same. separate, sequential 60-62, 305. circumstances, "while performed useful function, nothing quality patented," 62, 305 (footnote Finally, Sakraida Ag Pro, 425 273, 96 1532, 47 784 (1976), derived precedents "simply arranges each performing function perform" yields expect arrangement, 1532. underlying instructive claiming work incentives market forces prompt variations different one. implement variation, bars patentability. reason, technique improve recognize devices actual her skill. Rock illustrativea ask improvement established functions. may difficult involve simple piece ready improvement. Often, will interrelated multiple patents; effects demands community marketplace; possessed *1741 all order there apparent fashion issue. facilitate review, explicit. Kahn, 441 977, 988 (C.A.Fed.2006) ("[R]ejections grounds sustained conclusory statements; instead, articulated reasoning rational underpinning legal obviousness"). clear, seek directed claim, take inferences creative steps employ. demonstrating teaching, show Customs captured insight. Application Bergel, 48 C.C.P.A. 1102, 292 F.2d 955, 956-957 (1961). clear composed several was, independently, sense directs care innovation functions, important identify prompted does. inventions most, all, instances rely building blocks since uncovered, discoveries almost necessity what, sense, known. Helpful insights, become mandatory formulas; applied, incompatible precedents. confined formalistic conception motivation, overemphasis importance published articles explicit diversity inventive pursuits modern counsels against limiting many fields little discussion techniques combinations, often demand, scientific literature, drive trends. Granting protection advances occur course real retards progress may, deprive value utility. years essence doubt accord cases. There inconsistency idea But transforms general rule limits inquiry, errs. flaws most narrow reflected determining neither avowed *1742 What matters objective reach extends ways noting existed encompassed claims. error foreclose holding courts examiners solve. motivating matter. correct analysis, endeavor claimed. second lay assumption attempting problem. primary solving problem; so, considering consider putting Common teaches, items purposes, able fit pieces puzzle. Regardless Asano's purpose, point; replete indicating ideal designer hoping ignore makes sense. creativity, automaton. constricted conclude, error, showing "obvious try." (internal quotation marks pressure finite number identified, solutions, good pursue options technical grasp. anticipated instance Appeals, finally, drew wrong risk falling prey hindsight bias. factfinder aware, course, distortion bias cautious arguments reliant ex post reasoning. 36, 684 (warning "temptation read issue" instructing "`guard slipping hindsight'" Monroe Auto Heckethorn Mfg. Supply 332 406, 412 (C.A.6 1964))). Rigid preventative rules deny factfinders recourse *1743 law consistent note DyStar Textilfarben GmbH Deutschland KG C.H. Patrick 464 1356, 1367 (2006) ("Our actuality quite permits, requires, sense"); Alza Mylan Labs., 1286, 1291 ("There flexibility jurisprudence implicitly requires teaching ..."). Those decisions, us errors extent describe future hold fundamental misunderstandings identified above decisions. III facts, adopt recitation determination field. see difference combined seen benefits doing so. argues passing mechanisms. Respondents 48-49, n. 17. Therefore, reasons, establish encompasses argument not, raised assert Response Motion Summary Judgment Invalidity 02-74586 (ED Mich.), pp. 18-20, 144a-146a. unclear current advanced nonspecific, satisfy limitations Plaintiffs-Appellants 04-1152 (CA Fed.), 42-44. declarations, moreover, raises. Declaration Clark Radcliffe, Ph.D., 204-207; Timothy Andresen, id., 208-210. statement declaration bear Radcliffe declaration: "Asano ... complex linkage-based expensive produce assemble package. exactly difficulties [Engelgau] resolves. single reflecting *1744 adjustment features '565 206, ¶ 16. Read context best mean "[t]he '565[:] quickly assembled, control." 205, 10. pivot-mounted fell 592-593. Given sigificance finding judgment, clearer intended preserve raise fashion, silence correct. conclude that, marketplace created strong incentive convert achieving advance. too narrowly by, effect, asking writing blank slate ones truckline well, though reached result nevertheless. proper asked skill, facing wide range needs developments benefit upgrading automotive fields, interaction components changing component others modified Technological standard. designers scratch; engines. Indeed, model starting consequent question, then, discussed attaching utility footpad instead structure. And wire-chafing Smith's assemblies precipitate motion wires," 35-37, 274, nonmoving *1745 easily designer, accordingly, follow mounting pivot, thereby designing Just possible upgrade throttle, learn movement come, thereby, pivot. indirectly bulky, complex, expensive. evidence marshals argument, declaration, indicates goal making small, inexpensive indicate somehow flawed declarations refute Dr. states bulk complexity 206. expert, 209. Rixon's base upgrade, Radcliffe's either. plausible inefficient preferred embodiment, judge engage very rightly urges avoided. Accordingly, shown Like dislodge Proper facts therefore fails meet disclose during prosecution voids patents, despite presumption. think appropriate rationale presumptionthat PTO, expertise, approved claim seems much diminished IV separate ground gave reversing dispute fact. disagree understood exclude possibility provides affidavit addressing misunderstood role plays district testimony, keep end however. ultimate determination. Where, *1746 dispute, factors, appropriate. Nothing prevented reaching careful conclusions * build bringing tangible palpable reality works instinct, logic, inferences, extraordinary ideas, sometimes genius. advances, once shared knowledge, threshold starts more. higher levels achievement normal results rights laws. Were otherwise stifle, promote, arts. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 8. premises bar codified formulation constrained serve convincing step well grasp Its arguments, record, demonstrate rulings, analyzed narrow, reversed, remanded proceedings opinion. ordered.

Classification Label: 7