Assessing the Obviousness of Inventions

Organizations should evaluate their innovation processes in light of the evolving meaning of obviousness. In KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (April 30, 2007), the Supreme Court changed the obviousness standard. The new standard weakens patents and makes obtaining patent protection more challenging. Organizations can anticipate the need for rebuttal evidence and proactively capture evidence of unpredictability as innovations progress from concept to commercialization. To show non-obviousness, such evidence, or the lack thereof, can be used to decide whether to apply for a patent or maintain the potentially patentable technology as a trade secret, and, also, whether to continue development efforts or redirect investments to alternative ideas. Organizations that use an innovation process to capture evidence of unpredictability can preserve the strongest evidence of non-obviousness and, as a result, increase certainty in business decisions and, ultimately, profits.