KSR vs. Teleflex

1
IEOR 190G Simon Xu
KSR vs. Teleflex
2

• Manufacturing of All Pedal Systems
• Adjustable and fixed pedal modules
• Foot and hand-operated brakes
• Electronic throttle controls
• Electronic sensors

Defendant KSR Intl.
3

• Diversified Global Company
• Medical
• Aerospace
• Commercial

Plaintiff Teleflex Inc.
4
Vehicle Control Pedal and Sensor
Sends Signal to
Computer
Controls
Throttle
Technical Background
5
Butterfly Valve Throttle
Technical Background
6
The Patent
7
The Patent
8
Claim 4. A vehicle control pedal apparatus (12)
comprising a support (18) adapted to be mounted
to a vehicle structure (20) an adjustable pedal
assembly (22) having a pedal arm (14) moveable in
force and aft directions with respect to said
support (18) a pivot (24) for pivotally
supporting said adjustable pedal assembly (22)
with respect to said support (18) and defining a
pivot axis (26) and an electronic control (28)
attached to said support (18) for controlling a
vehicle system said apparatus (12) characterized
by said electronic control (28) being responsive
to said pivot (24) for providing a signal (32)
that corresponds to pedal arm position as said
pedal arm (14) pivots about said pivot axis (26)
between rest and applied positions wherein the
position of said pivot (24) remains constant
while said pedal arm (14) moves in fore and aft
directions with respect to said pivot (24).
The Patent
9
The Patent
10

• DISTRICT COURT
• Ruling Favor KSR
• Basis Section 103

• APPEALS COURT
• Ruling Favor Teleflex
• Basis TSM Test

• SUPREME COURT
• Ruling Favor KSR
• Basis Section 103

The Case
11
How long did it take?
2002
2002 Teleflex sues KSR 2002 KSR counters 2003
District rules in favor of KSR 2005 Federal
Appeals overrules 2007 Supreme Court reverses
The Case
12
Title 35 USC Section 103
A patent may not be obtained though the invention
if the differences between the subject matter
sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have
been obvious at the time the invention was made
to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
which said subject matter pertains.

• Graham vs. Deere

Obviousness
13
TSM Test

• there must be a suggestion or teaching in the
  prior art to combine elements shown in the prior
  art in order to find a patent obvious

Obviousness
14

• Supreme Court
• Narrow and rigid application of TSM test
• A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a
  person of ordinary creativity, not a automaton.

Obviousness
15

• Application of the TSM Test
• PHOSITA
• KSR vs. Teleflex cited in about 60 of decisions
  related to obviousness (reversal rates still the
  same)

Implications