October Term 2006 · Docket 04-1350

Should courts require a specific motivation to combine prior art before invalidating a patent?

The dispute centers on whether a rigid legal test wrongly protects patents that combine known elements without a clear reason.

Official caption
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Dabney argued the patent claim is broadly worded. He stated the Solicitor General agrees it is invalid.

    Mr. Hungar argued the motivation test is bad policy. He claimed it produces wrong answers in cases like this.

    Mr. Goldstein referenced the supplemental joint appendix. He promised to quote from the provided documents.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

KSR International challenges a patent for an adjustable pedal. Teleflex defends the patent's validity. The core issue is the legal standard for obviousness.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 28, 2006.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

KSR International wants the Court to reject the rigid motivation test. They argue this test wrongly protects weak patents.

Teleflex wants the Court to keep the strict test. They argue this test provides clear rules for patent validity.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

KSR International argues the current test contradicts the Patent Act. They claim it asks the wrong legal question.

Teleflex argues the motivation test is essential. They claim it prevents arbitrary invalidation of patents.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Ginsburg asked if the argument holds against recent Federal Circuit decisions.

Justice Breyer asked for a clear definition of the term motivation in this context.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines how easily patents can be invalidated. It affects the cost and speed of innovation across industries.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON