Re-Thinking the "Motivation to Combine" in Patent Law

48 AIPLA Q.J. 1 (2020)

32 Pages Posted:

Date Written: May 8, 2020

Abstract

In determining whether a patent claim is invalid for obviousness, one of the most important inquiries is whether a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the prior art references that are alleged to invalidate the claim. The Federal Circuit has consistently held that this “motivation-to-combine” inquiry is a question of fact. However, this Article argues that the Federal Circuit is mistaken. Treating the motivation-to-combine inquiry as a question of fact violates Supreme Court precedent and eviscerates the settled rule that obviousness itself is a question of law. Moreover, treating the motivation-to-combine inquiry as a question of fact makes patent litigation more cumbersome and inefficient by impeding summary judgment on the obviousness defense. Thus, the Federal Circuit should discard its rule that the motivation-to-combine inquiry is a question of fact and should instead treat this inquiry as part of the ultimate obviousness determination—a question of law.

Keywords: Patent; Obviousness; Motivation to Combine

Suggested Citation

Sohn, Joshua Lee, Re-Thinking the "Motivation to Combine" in Patent Law (May 8, 2020). 48 AIPLA Q.J. 1 (2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=

Joshua Lee Sohn (Contact Author)

Independent ( email )

No Address Available
United States

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
6
Abstract Views
18
PlumX Metrics