Citations (1)


Footnotes (260)



A Cost-Benefit Approach to Patent Obviousness

Tun-Jen Chiang

George Mason University School of Law; Washington University in Saint Louis - School of Law

St. John's Law Review, Vol. 82, p. 39

The standard to determine whether an invention is innovative, known as the obviousness standard, has been a continuing mystery in patent law. Courts try to determine obviousness by asking if the patented invention was nonobvious and embodied sufficient ingenuity. The problem with this ingenuity approach is that it lacks objectivity. What is ingenious to one person appears obvious to another.

This Article proposes a new test for patentability, with two key insights. The first is that what matters for society is not whether the invention embodies ingenuity, but rather whether the patent reward creates more benefits than costs. The second is that the benefits and costs depend on when society would otherwise have had the same invention. Social cost begins accruing when, absent the patent reward, society would still have received the same invention through an independent inventor. This cost must be balanced against the benefits of having the invention earlier, before independent invention, due to patent system incentives.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 67

Keywords: Patent, Obviousness, Independent Invention, KSR, Cost Benefit

JEL Classification: K11

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: March 21, 2008 ; Last revised: December 5, 2014

Suggested Citation

Chiang, Tun-Jen, A Cost-Benefit Approach to Patent Obviousness. St. John's Law Review, Vol. 82, p. 39. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1012097

Contact Information

Tun-Jen Chiang (Contact Author)
George Mason University School of Law ( email )

Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University Logo

Washington University in Saint Louis - School of Law ( email )
Campus Box 1120
St. Louis, MO 63130
United States
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,523
Downloads: 295
Download Rank: 76,912
Citations:  1
Footnotes:  260
Paper comments
No comments have been made on this paper