This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to KSR International, the dispute centers on claim 4 of the Engelgau patent, which the petitioner says is overly broad and invalid under § 103 of the Patent Act.
Background and question before the Court
Petitioner KSR International argues that claim 4 of the Engelgau patent is broadly worded and invalid under § 103, a view shared by the Solicitor General and the USPTO.
What each side argues
KSR International (Petitioner)
According to KSR International, claim 4 of the Engelgau patent is overly broad and therefore invalid under § 103 of the Patent Act.
Teleflex (Respondent)
According to Respondent (Mr. Hungar), claims 1‑3 of the Engelgau patent are valid, but claim 4 is so broad that it sweeps obvious manifestations.
According to Mr. GOLDSTEIN, the invention is an adjustable pedal that has a non‑moving pivot.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Souter asked about the “revolution argument” and whether overturning long‑standing precedent would cause chaos.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg questioned the vagueness of the “sufficiently innovative” standard proposed by the petitioner.
Justice Scalia asked what would happen to the presumption of validity of patents if the teaching‑suggestion‑motivation test were discarded.
Justice Kennedy asked why claim 4 is considered a “big deal.”
Justice Breyer asked whether there would be any objection to the opinion being discussed.
Justice Stevens asked what makes the invention non‑obvious.
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens described the invention as “the decision of where to put the control.”
Chief Justice Roberts asked what makes the invention non‑obvious, suggesting it is attached to a non‑moving piece.
- [1] 39e7b9ace9baab780ba7-r1-f11a6a6c64444bfd.pdf, p. 20
- [2] 39e7b9ace9baab780ba7-r1-f11a6a6c64444bfd.pdf, p. 22
- [3] 39e7b9ace9baab780ba7-r1-f11a6a6c64444bfd.pdf, p. 23
- [4] 39e7b9ace9baab780ba7-r1-f11a6a6c64444bfd.pdf, p. 46
- [5] 39e7b9ace9baab780ba7-r1-f11a6a6c64444bfd.pdf, p. 46
- [6] 39e7b9ace9baab780ba7-r1-f11a6a6c64444bfd.pdf, p. 54
- [7] 39e7b9ace9baab780ba7-r1-f11a6a6c64444bfd.pdf, p. 55
- [8] 39e7b9ace9baab780ba7-r1-f11a6a6c64444bfd.pdf, p. 55
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 39e7b9ace9baab780ba7-r1-f11a6a6c64444bfd.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.