Tuning the Obviousness Inquiry after KSR

19 Pages Posted: 17 Jul 2012 Last revised: 11 Jul 2013

See all articles by Mark D. Janis

Mark D. Janis

Indiana University Maurer School of Law

Date Written: 2012


One of the most important and delicate judicial tasks in patent law is to keep the obviousness doctrine in reasonable working order. There are several reasons why the obviousness doctrine has been the subject of frequent judicial tinkering. First, patentability doctrines interact with each other, so doctrinal alterations that seem to be entirely external to the obviousness doctrine frequently have ripple effects on obviousness. The interaction between the utility and obviousness doctrines provides one good example. Second, the obviousness doctrine is internally complex. Cases in the chemical and biotechnology areas over the past several decades have amply illustrated this point. This article examines Chief Judge Rader’s contributions to the task of tuning the obviousness doctrine, with particular attention to cases that have arisen after the Supreme Court’s pronouncements on obviousness in KSR v. Teleflex.

Suggested Citation

Janis, Mark David, Tuning the Obviousness Inquiry after KSR (2012). Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts, Vol. 7, No. 4, p. 335 (2012); Indiana Legal Studies Research Paper No. 206. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2111241

Mark David Janis (Contact Author)

Indiana University Maurer School of Law ( email )

211 S. Indiana Avenue
Bloomington, IN 47405
United States

Register to save articles to
your library


Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics