550 U.S. 398 (2007) Cited 1,522 times 180 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"
Holding that the objective evidence supported an obviousness finding where others had “tried for a long time” to develop the claimed invention but found it “very hard” and “were all not successful”
Holding en banc that Federal Circuit law governs question of whether patent law conflicts with trade dress action under § 43 of the Lanham Act or preempts such an action under state law
Noting that licenses "may constitute evidence of nonobviousness; however, only little weight can be attributed to such evidence if the patentee does not demonstrate a nexus between the merits of the invention and the licenses of record" (quoting In re GPAC Inc. , 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995) )
Finding "sufficient evidence of both commercial success and nexus to the features of the claimed invention" as presented through contracts and an employee's testimony
Holding that regardless of whether defendant had shown a motivation to combine the prior art, the showing could be rebutted by evidence of commercial success
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,061 times 459 Legal Analyses
Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."
Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"
Providing that where ex parte reexamination request does not meet requirements, requester is "generally...given an opportunity to complete the request within a specified time"