From Michael Barclay via the SCOTUS blog:

This decision makes it far easier to invalidate patents based on obviousness. Thus, this is the most important patent case of the last 20 years, and perhaps since the passage of the 1952 Patent Act. Virtually every litigated patent case includes an assertion of obviousness - and ones that might not have included that defense up until now are more likely to do so. The PTO examines every patent application for obviousness. KSR v. Teleflex will thus have an enormous impact on both the prosecution and litigation aspects of patent practice.

Here here. It is sad when the Supreme Court has to essentially issue a ruling on what the word "obvious" means. But at least they got it right. I would suggest that people start searching through all of the bogus patents out there, find a way to get standing in court, and start issuing challenges.

You're, um, not a lawyer, are you? You really think it's sad when the Supreme Court "has to" issue a ruling interpreting the law? Now that's really silly. It is, in fact, what the Court does. It is, in fact, what we want the Court to do. What is "obvious" in this context is not, as you blithely suggest, actually obvious. And here, for those looking for some actual information, the context is "when is the innovation sufficiently inventive and non-obvious under the law when a new invention combines prior art in a new way?" It is actually a fairly narrow legal question about how large the so-called inventive step must be to render an innovation nonobvious enough to warrant a patent. Except for those (i.e., the bloggers here) who think each patent is one patent too many, this is an important, difficult, and non-obvious question. The claim that the Supreme Court is here issuing a mere dictionary definition of the word obvious is, as I said, just silly. Unless, of course, you think the Court is also merely writing definitions of words like "free speech," "segregation," "due process" and the like.

I agreed with the other remark (about which firms are innovative) but not this one. The Supreme Court ruled in Eldred that a limited time means forever, so I am doubtful that what they do is interpret the law. It is equally clear to me that the Circuit Court interpretation of "obvious" does violence to the meaning of the word and to the intention of both the statute and the constitution. So I am relieved that they unanimously made the correct interpretation of the law in this case. In the case of the constitution, I have no disagreement with it as written. The part about "promotion of science and the useful arts" seems to be generally (although as this ruling shows, not always) lost on the courts. It is true that I think the evidence shows that neither copyright nor patents promote science and the useful arts. While reasonable people might disagree with this, I don't think there is reasonable disagreement about whether the current state of copyright and patent law serve to discourage science and the useful arts - I think the evidence that they discourage both is overwhelming.

Geoff - In fact I am a lawyer, and one who knows a fair amount of IP law. But what difference does that make? Does one need to be a lawyer in order to criticize the legal system? You are right in asserting that it has become the Court's job to interpret the definition of "obvious". I suppose it is also their job to interpret the defintion of "is" as well. But I maintain that such efforts go more towards proving my own point rather than yours.

Justin: As I note below, my argument doesn't rise or fall on whether you or I am a lawyer. I just presumed that a lawyer wouldn't suggest that folks go "find a way to get standing" and start challenging patents. Well, I mean, except a class action plaintiff's attorney.

And more to the point, I would have thought a lawyer would know that what courts do is interpret and give legal effect to words in contracts, statutes, other cases, regulations, etc. What the Supreme Court is doing here is not a relic of a patent system gone horribly awry; it's part and parcel of a well-functioning legal system. You may wish that the dictionary definition of obvious would suffice here, but that's just naive. And when legal liability and/or patent invalidity turn on the definition, I would think we would want to praise depth and precision rather than criticize the effort. My point, then, was that that claim in your post was horribly off base and, to quote myself, "silly." I figured a lawyer wouldn't make such an argument with a straight face, so I added that ad hominem for color (although many people would more readily consider being called a lawyer the real ad hominem). The epithet wasn't really meant to do any of the lifting here, though.

"What the Supreme Court is doing here is not a relic of a patent system gone horribly awry; it's part and parcel of a well-functioning legal system." I'd agree that it is not a relic of a patent system gone horribly awry - but I don't think you can argue that it is a part and parcel of a well-functioning legal system. The economic damage done by the excesses of a patent system that has gone horribly awry have been around for quite a while - it started with the changes made in the patent office in the Reagan administration over 15 years ago. I don't think it is a triumph to allow the Federal Circuit to run out of control for more than a decade before reigning it in.

I AM NOT A LAWYER. I have read some history. Oliver Wendall Holmes believed that the justices of the Supreme Court decided what outcome they wanted and then found the law and precedent to reach it. That seems about right to me. In this case, they unanimously found an outcome they wanted--reigning in the wholesale issuing of questionable patents. Hooray.

Courts defiing words to mean what they want is not a sign of a well-functioning legal system. When the courts make up things like this as they go, they reduce people's ability to know, and avoid breaking, the law in advance.

Also, it reminds me of the saying, "Once you reach the point that you need to write down your code of ethics, you have already lost."

Anonymous takes me back to when I first discovered the Holmes view. I was outraged. The judges can make the law mean what they want? But judicial interpretation creeps in from the change in circumstances that occur over time. So far as I know, there is only one Supreme, Clarence Thomas, who still stands by the "original intent" of the framers of the constitution. The rest seem to change whenever there is something they want to push. They just have to find reasonable grounds to persuade the public. Read some more history. During the 30's, FDR went after the Nine Old Men who blocked his anti depression measures. He wasn't able to pack the court, but the court began "reading election returns." It still does. Holmes was only guilty of exaggerating his characterization of how the court rules--in reality, it is constrained by having to appear reasonable and logical.