Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Intellectual Property Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Journal

2014

Inventions

Discipline

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Intellectual Property Law

Predictability And Nonobviousness In Patent Law After Ksr, Christopher A. Cotropia Jan 2014

Predictability And Nonobviousness In Patent Law After Ksr, Christopher A. Cotropia

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., the Supreme Court addressed the doctrine of nonobviousness, the ultimate question of patentability, for the first time in thirty years. In mandating a flexible approach to deciding nonobviousness, the KSR opinion introduced two predictability standards for determining nonobviousness. The Court described predictability of use (hereinafter termed “Type I predictability”)— whether the inventor used the prior art in a predictable manner to create the invention—and predictability of the result (hereinafter termed “Type II predictability”)—whether the invention produced a predictable result—both as a means for proving obviousness. Although Type I predictability is easily explained as …


Structure From Nothing And Claims For Free: Using A Whole-System View Of The Patent System To Improve Notice And Predictability For Software Patents, Holly K. Victorson Jan 2014

Structure From Nothing And Claims For Free: Using A Whole-System View Of The Patent System To Improve Notice And Predictability For Software Patents, Holly K. Victorson

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

No uniform or customary method of disclosure for software patents is currently employed by inventors. This Note examines the issues that develop from software patent claims disclosed at various levels of abstraction, and the difficulties encountered by courts and the public when investigating the contours of the software patent space. While the courts have placed some restrictions on the manner in which software inventions are claimed, they are easily bypassed by clever patent applicants who desire to claim the maximum scope of their inventions. In the long run, however, a large “patent thicket” of overlapping and potentially overbroad inventions will …