PLEASE NOTE: I STOPPED UPDATING THIS PAGE ON SEPT 12, 2008

On April 30, 2007, the Supreme Court issued its decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 2007 WL 1237837. In the case, the Supreme Court “beg[a]n by rejecting the rigid approach of the Court of Appeals” for the Federal Circuit to the proof required to show an invention would have been obvious (and is therefore unpatentable). Returning to its own nonobviousness cases, the Court held that “the [nonobviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”On this resource page, I offer a running list of the patent cases in which tribunals have applied the KSR case to analyze the question of nonobviousness. I post a newly decided case within a day or two of receiving electronic notice of it (by means of a Westlaw daily automatic search). [Last updated 9/12/2008]

Federal Circuit Cases

• Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., slip op., 231 Fed. Appx. 954 (Fed. Cir. May 3, 2007)
• Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., slip op., 485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2007)
• Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., slip op., 488 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2007) (opinions on court’s denial of en banc review)
• Omegaflex, Inc. v. Parker-Hannifin, slip op., 243 Fed. Appx. 592 (Fed. Cir. June 18, 2007)
• Takeda Chemical Indus. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd., slip op., 492 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. June 28, 2007)
• Frazier v. Layne Christensen Co., slip op., 239 Fed. Appx. 604 (Fed. Cir. June 29, 2007)
• PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc., slip op., 491 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2007) (overturning jury verdict of nonobviousness)
• Superseded, see below: Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., slip op., 2007 WL 2032123 (Fed. Cir. July 11, 2007) (overturning bench trial verdict of nonobviousness)
• In re Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., slip op., 496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2007) (affirming PTO rejection for obviousness)
• In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 22, 2007) (affirming PTO rejection for obviousness)
• In re Sullivan, 498 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2007) (reversing PTO rejection for obviousness)
• Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., slip op., 499 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (reversing bench trial verdict that claims in suit would not have been obvious)
• Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., slip op., 501 F.3d 1254 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 12, 2007) (reissued as precedential) (overturning bench trial verdict of nonobviousness)
• In re Comiskey, slip op., 499 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
• In re Translogic Technology, Inc., slip copy, 504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
• z4 Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 507 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (refusing request for new trial on purportedly incorrect jury instruction)
• Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (affirming trial court’s decision to exclude an expert’s report on the ground it was too conclusory because, although it asserted that the claimed invention would have been obvious, it did not explain how or why a phosita would have found it to be so in light of the cited prior art references)
• Erico Int’l Corp. v. Vutec Corp., 516 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 19, 2008) (reversing preliminary injunction on the ground that the accused infringer had raised a substantial question of invalidity for obviousness)
• Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 28, 2008)
• Ortho-McNeil Pharma. v. Mylan Labs., 520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 31, 2008)
• Scanner Technologies Corp. v. ICOS Visions Systems Corp., 528 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. June 19, 2008) (affirming bench trial verdict of invalidity for obviousness)
• Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2008)
• Eisai Co. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., 533 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. July 21, 2008)
• In re Stauffer, No. 07-1445, 2008 WL ___ (Fed. Cir. July 24, 2008)
• Lexion Medical, LLC v. Northgate Technologies, Inc., No. 07-1420, 2008 WL 4097481 (Fed. Cir. Aug 28, 2008) (nonprecedential)

District Court Cases

• Technology Licensing Corp. v. Gennum Corp., No. 01-04204, 2007 WL 1319528, at *18 n.38 (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2007)
• Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc., No. 04-29, 2007 WL 1467228 (D. Or. May 17, 2007)
• Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 05-5373, 2007 WL 1549498 (N.D. Ill. May 24, 2007)
• In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation, __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2007 WL 1576153 (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2007)
• Eaton Corp. v. ZF Meritor LLC, No. 03-74844, 2007 WL 1577838 (E.D. Mich. May 31, 2007)
• McNeil-PPC, Inc. v. Perrigo Co., No. 05-1321, 2007 WL 1624764 (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2007) (withdrawn by revised opinion issued July 3, 2007)
• Torspo Hockey Int’l, Inc. v. Kor Hockey Ltd., No. 07-0246, 2007 WL 1752725 (D. Minn. June 18, 2007)
• Semiconductor Energy Lab. v. Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp., No. 04-4675, 2007 WL 1793770 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2007) (granting summary judgment of invalidity for obviousness)
• Stryker Trauma S.A. v. Synthes (USA), No. 01-3879, 2007 WL 1959231 (D.N.J. June 29, 2007)
• Stryker Trauma S.A. v. Synthes (USA), No. 01-3879, 2007 WL 1959233 (D.N.J. June 29, 2007)
• Single Chip Systems Corp. v. Intermec IP Corp., __ F. Supp. __, No. 04-1517, 2007 WL 1970877 (S.D. Cal. June 29, 2007)
• Andersen Mfg., Inc. v. Diversi-Tech Corp., No. 05-923, 2007 WL 1892509 (D. Utah July 2, 2007)
• McNeil-PPC, Inc. v. Perrigo Co., No. 05-1321, 2007 WL 1933931 (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2007)
• Pass & Seymour, Inc. v. Hubbell Inc., No. 07-0272, 2007 WL 2172648 (N.D.N.Y. July 23, 2007) (denying preliminary injunction because, inter alia, the accused infringer raised a serious question that the claims in suit are invalid for obviousness)
• Friskit, Inc. v. RealNetworks, Inc., No. 03-05085, 2007 WL 2156239 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2007) (granting summary judgment of invalidity for obviousness)
• MercExchange, LLC v. eBay, Inc., No. 01-736, 2007 WL 2172587 (E.D. Va. July 27, 2007)
• Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., No. 01-1003, 2007 WL 2225847 (W.D. Pa. July 31, 2007)
• Andersen Corp. v. Pella Corp., 05-824, 2007 WL 2372396 (D. Minn. July 31, 2007)
• Asyst Technologies, Inc. v. Empak, Inc., No. 98-20451, 2007 WL 2255220 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2007)
• Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., No. 02-2060, 2007 WL 2274416 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2007)
• Craig v. Foldfast, Inc., No. 06-61009, 2007 WL 2316585 (S.D. Fla. Aug 9, 2007)
• AdvanceMe Inc. v. RapidPay, LLC, No. 05-424, 2007 WL 2350644 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2007)
• Boston Scientific Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 02-790, 2007 WL 2408870 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2007)
• MMJK, Inc. v. Ultimate Blackjack Tour LLC, No. 07-3236, 2007 WL 2428047 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2007)
• PBI Performance Products, Inc. v. NorFab Corp., No. 05-4836, 2007 WL 2464507 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 29, 2007)
• TradeCard, Inc. v. S1 Corp., 509 F.Supp.2d 304 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2007)
• Altana Pharma AG v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 04-2355, 2007 WL 2688917 (D.N.J. Sept. 6, 2007) (denying preliminary injunction on strength of accused infringer’s obviousness-based attack)
• Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 05-1887, 2007 WL 2669338 (D.N.J. Sept. 6, 2007) (denying preliminary injunction on strength of accused infringer’s obviousness attack)
• Sud-Chemie, Inc. v. Multisorb Technologies, Inc., 2007 WL 2669366 (W.D. Ky. Sept. 7, 2007) (holding claims invalid for obviousness)
• Eaton Corp. v. ZF Meritor LLC, No. 03-74844, 2007 WL 2738811 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 19, 2007)
• Caponey v. ADA Enterprises, Inc., 511 F.Supp.2d 624 (D.S.C. Sept. 21, 2007)
• Timeline, Inc. v. Proclarity Corp., No. 05-1013, 2007 WL 2789340 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 24, 2007)
• Eaton Corp. v. ZF Meritor LLC, No. 03-74844, 2007 WL 2822775 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 26, 2007)
• Titan Tire Corp. v. Case New Holland, Inc., No. 07-00063, 2007 WL 2914513 (S.D. Iowa Oct. 3, 2007) (denying preliminary injunction)
• Eaton Corp. v. ZF Meritor LLC, No. 03-74844, 2007 WL 2901692 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 4, 2007) (denying summary judgment)
• VNUS Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Diomed Holdings, Inc., No. 05-2972, 2007 WL 3096589 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2007)
• Bayer AG v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd., No. 04-179, 2007 WL 3120794 (D. Del. Oct. 25, 2007)
• TGIP, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., No. 06-105, 2007 WL 3194125 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 29, 2007)
• Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd., No. 04-2000, 2007 WL 3231709 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007)
• Apple Computer, Inc. v. Burst.com, Inc., No. 06-0019, 2007 WL 3342829 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2007)
• Panoptx Inc. v. Protective Optics, Inc., No. 06-7610, 2007 WL 3344453 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2007)
• Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co., No. 06-091, 2007 WL 4115789 (D. Del. Nov. 20, 2007)
• Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz Inc., No. 05-5373, 2007 WL 4287501 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 4, 2007)
• In re Muth Mirror Sys., No. 06-25609, 2007 WL 4300480 (Bankr. E.D. Wisc. Dec. 5, 2007)
• Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gorbain Corp., No. 04-0387, 2007 4334780 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 6, 2007)
• DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., No. 01-10165, 2007 WL 4305933 (D. Mass. Dec. 11, 2007)
• Depomed, Inc. v. Ivax Corp., No. 06-100, 2007 WL 4365476 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2007)
• Printguard, Inc. v. Anti-Marking Systems, Inc., No. 07-40256, 2008 WL 245415 (D. Mass. Jan. 16, 2008) (denying preliminary injunction on the strength of the obviousness attack on the patents in suit)
• Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., No. 07-2000, 2008 WL 200303 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2008)
• Berkel & Co. Contractors, Inc. v. HJ Foundation, No. 06-1073, 2008 WL 227880 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 25, 2008) (granting summary judgment of invalidity for obviousness)
• ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., No. 01-3578, 2008 WL 313921 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 01, 2008)
• Lucent Tech., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 06-0684, 2008 WL 410692 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2008)
• Boston Scientific Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 02-790, 2008 WL 480193 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2008)
• Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 536 F.Supp.2d 476 (D. Del. Feb. 28, 2008)
• Bayer Schering Pharma AG v. Barr Labs., Inc., No. 05-2308, 2008 WL 628592 (D.N.J. Mar. 03, 2008)
• Kleen-Tex Industries v. Mountville Mills, No. 03-093, 2008 WL 2486363 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 3, 2008
• Murata Mfg. v. Bel Fuse, Inc., No. 03-2934, 2008 WL 719217 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 12, 2008)
• Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., 539 F.Supp.2d 571 (D. Conn. Mar. 20, 2008)
• Shuffle Master, Inc. v. MP Games LLC, No. 04-407, 2008 WL 819967 (D. Nev. Mar. 21, 2008)
• Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc., No. 05-3684, 2008 WL 834443 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 27, 2008)
• Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 542 F.Supp.2d 342 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2008)
• Farrago v. Rawlings Sporting Goods Co., No. 06-958, 2008 WL 880178 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 31, 2008)
• Fisher-Barton Blades, Inc. v. Blount, Inc., No. 05-460, 2008 WL 906125 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 31, 2008)
• Eaton Corp. v. ZF Meritor LLC, No. 03-74844, 2008 WL 920073 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 3, 2008)
• Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., No. 04-2123, 2008 WL 931223 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2008)
• Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc., No. 05-463, 2008 WL 1746634 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2008)
• Elantech Devices Corp. v. Synaptics, Inc., No. 06-1839, 2008 WL 1734748 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2008)
• Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 514 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 14, 2008)
• Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Kali Laboratories, Inc., No. 06-3533, 2008 WL 1782283 (D.N.J. Apr. 17, 2008)
• Rothman v. Target Corp., No. 05-4829, 2008 WL 1844284 (D.N.J. Apr. 23, 2008)
• Alloc, Inc. v. Pergo, Inc., No. 02-736, 2008 WL 1968391 (E.D. Wis. May 1, 2008)
• U.S. Philips Corp. v. Iwasaki Elec. Co., No. 03-172, 2008 WL 2115176 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2008)
• Wyers v. Master Lock Co., No. 06-619, 2008 WL 2168977 (D. Colo. May 22, 2008)
• Hitachi Koki Co. v. Dudas, No. 07-1504, 2008 WL 2323527 (D.D.C. May 29, 2008)
• Stanford University Trustees v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., No. 05-4158, 2008 WL 2241468 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2008)
• Izzo Golf, Inc. v. King Par Golf Inc., No. 02-6012, 2008 WL 2445500 (W.D.N.Y. June 16, 2008)
• Lucent Technologies v. Gateway, No. 07-2000, 2008 WL 2491955 (S.D. Cal. June 19, 2008)
• Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., No. 04-02123, 2008 WL 2558001 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2008)
• Church & Dwight Co. v. Abbott Labs., No. 05-2142, 2008 WL 2565349 (D.N.J. June 24, 2008)
• Comcast Cable Communications Corp. v. Finisar Corp., No. 06-04206, 2008 WL 2740324 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2008)
• Patent Category Corp. v. Target Corp., No. 06-7311, 2008 WL 2783191 (C.D. Cal. July 16, 2008)
• Avante Int’l Tech. Corp. v. Premier Election Solutions, Inc., No. 06-0978, 2008 WL 2783237 (E.D. Mo. July 16, 2008)
• Izzo Golf, Inc. v. Taylor Made Golf Co., No. 04-6253, 2008 WL 2789026 (W.D.N.Y. July 16, 2008)
• Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 06-0684, 2008 WL 2872738 (S.D. Cal. July 23, 2008)
• NuClimate Air Quality Systems, Inc. v. M&I Heat Transfer Products, Ltd., No. 08-0317, 2008 WL 2917589 (N.D.N.Y. July 24, 2008)
• SPX Corp. v. Bartec USA, No. 06-14888, 2008 WL 3850770 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 12, 2008) (granting motion to exclude an expert’s report on the ground that it was fatally conclusory, but allowing expert to refile more detailed report)
• Black v. Ce Soir Lingerie Co., No. 06-544, 2008 WL 3852722 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2008)
• SRI International Inc. v. Internet Security Sys., No. 04-1199, 2008 WL 3873832 (D. Del. Aug. 21, 2008)
• Rowe Intern. Corp. v. Ecast, Inc., No. 06-2703, 2008 WL 4133516 (N.D. Ill. Aug 25, 2008)
• In re ‘318 Patent Infringement Litigation, No. 05-356, 2008 WL 3925164 (D. Del. Aug. 27, 2008)
• Everett Laboratories, Inc. Breckenridgue Pharmaceutical, Inc., No. 08-3156, 2008 WL 4053447 (D.N.J. Aug 26, 2008)
• Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., No. 03-7713, 2008 WL 4083145 (N.D. Ill. Aug 27, 2008)
• MacDermid Printing Solutions, L.L.C. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., No. 07-4325, 2008 WL 4126255 (D.N.J. Sep 04, 2008)
• Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., No. 05-1103, 2008 WL 4140384 (E.D. Pa. Sep 08, 2008)
• First Years, Inc. v. Munchkin, Inc., No. 07-558, 2008 WL 4168205 (W.D. Wis. Sep 09, 2008)

Precedential Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences Cases*

• Ex parte Kubin, Appeal No. 2007-0819, Application No. 09/667,859, Technology Center 1600, 2007 WL 2070495 (BPAI May 31, 2007)
• Ex parte Smith, Appeal No. 2007-1925, Application No. 09/391,869, Technology Center 3700, 2007 WL 1813761 (BPAI June 25, 2007)
• Ex parte Catan, Appeal No. 2007-0820, Application No. 09/734,808, Technology Center 1700, 2007 WL 1934867 (BPAI July 3, 2007)
• Ex parte Fu, Appeal No. 2008-0601, Application No. 10/320,809, Technology Center 1700 (BPAI March 31, 2008)

* The Board provides a list of its recent precedential decisions at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/prec.htm