CASE SUMMARY 24.3 KSR International v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007) PATENTS KSR
ID: 1166536 • Letter: C
Question
CASE SUMMARY 24.3 KSR International v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007) PATENTS KSR designs and manufactures auto parts and sells them to auto manufacturers (not consumers). KSR developed a pedal device for Ford vehicles and also received a patent on the pedal device. KSR also sold products to General Motors (GM), and, in order to make the pedal device compatible for GM cars, KSR added an electronic throttle control to the pedal device. Teleflex claimed to have a patent for the pedal device that could be connected to such a throttle and, therefore, sued KSR for patent infringement. KSR defended on the basis that the device produced for GM was simply a combination of two existing products and was not patentable. CASE QUESTIONS 1. What do you think Teleflex's specific theory of infringement was? 2. Which element of patentability does KSR claim Teleflex is missing in the combined device?Explanation / Answer
1.What do you think Teleflex’s specific theory of infringement was?
Answer-Teleflex sued the KSR International on the grounds that KSR International did copy it’s of the electronic paddle for which they have patent. And by doing so, the KSR International has committed the infringement of the patent. Teleflex had a patent in making paddles with which they attached some electronic device, making it automatic.
2.Which element of patentability does KSR claim Teleflex is missing in the combined device?
Answer-According to KSR’s claim, Teleflex is missing the prior obvious art of the design and its combination in its previous devices. According to KSR, this proves that Teleflex did infringe the law of the patent and therefore should be accountable for that.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.