Patent Law Viewed Through an Evidentiary Lens: The 'Suggestion Test' as a Rule of Evidence

BYU Law Review Pub Date : 2006-03-01 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.893965
C. Cotropia
{"title":"Patent Law Viewed Through an Evidentiary Lens: The 'Suggestion Test' as a Rule of Evidence","authors":"C. Cotropia","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.893965","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Federal Circuit's recent nonobviousness jurisprudence has been the subject of much criticism. Reports from the Federal Trade Commission and the National Research Council and a pending petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court all conclude that the Federal Circuit has improperly relaxed the nonobviousness standard. Most of this criticism focuses on the Federal Circuit's implementation of part of the nonobviousness inquiry - the suggestion test. The suggestion test queries whether a suggestion to make the invention existed before the invention's creation. The Federal Circuit allegedly requires a suggestion to come solely from prior art references. The court ignores other evidence of undocumented suggestions that may exist in the knowledge of those skilled in the relevant technology or the nature of the problem being solved. This Article tests the validity of this criticism and finds that the Federal Circuit has not narrowed the suggestion test. By taking a novel look at the jurisprudence, the Article concludes that, instead, the court has adopted an evidentiary-like aspect to the suggestion test. Those cases where it appears the court is focusing only on the prior art are actually instances where the court is exercising an evidentiary aspect of the suggestion test. The suggestion test's rule of evidence excludes undocumented evidence of suggestion that does not contain the requisite detail and analysis. This rule of evidence is tailored to adjust the level of detail and analysis required to correspond to the complexity of the technology at issue. As a result, the suggestion test's rule of evidence helps to reduce overvaluation of suggestion evidence and the resulting, incorrect obviousness determinations. However, the rule may produce some erroneous nonobviousness determinations of its own, particularly at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and thus should be relaxed in this context. Finally, this use of an evidentiary lens to look at, and evaluate, patent doctrine has application in patent law far beyond nonobviousness and the suggestion test.","PeriodicalId":142428,"journal":{"name":"BYU Law Review","volume":"213 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BYU Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.893965","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The Federal Circuit's recent nonobviousness jurisprudence has been the subject of much criticism. Reports from the Federal Trade Commission and the National Research Council and a pending petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court all conclude that the Federal Circuit has improperly relaxed the nonobviousness standard. Most of this criticism focuses on the Federal Circuit's implementation of part of the nonobviousness inquiry - the suggestion test. The suggestion test queries whether a suggestion to make the invention existed before the invention's creation. The Federal Circuit allegedly requires a suggestion to come solely from prior art references. The court ignores other evidence of undocumented suggestions that may exist in the knowledge of those skilled in the relevant technology or the nature of the problem being solved. This Article tests the validity of this criticism and finds that the Federal Circuit has not narrowed the suggestion test. By taking a novel look at the jurisprudence, the Article concludes that, instead, the court has adopted an evidentiary-like aspect to the suggestion test. Those cases where it appears the court is focusing only on the prior art are actually instances where the court is exercising an evidentiary aspect of the suggestion test. The suggestion test's rule of evidence excludes undocumented evidence of suggestion that does not contain the requisite detail and analysis. This rule of evidence is tailored to adjust the level of detail and analysis required to correspond to the complexity of the technology at issue. As a result, the suggestion test's rule of evidence helps to reduce overvaluation of suggestion evidence and the resulting, incorrect obviousness determinations. However, the rule may produce some erroneous nonobviousness determinations of its own, particularly at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and thus should be relaxed in this context. Finally, this use of an evidentiary lens to look at, and evaluate, patent doctrine has application in patent law far beyond nonobviousness and the suggestion test.
从证据的角度看专利法:作为证据规则的“暗示测试”
联邦巡回法院最近的非显而易见性判例一直是许多批评的对象。来自联邦贸易委员会和国家研究委员会的报告,以及向最高法院提交的一份未决的调卷请愿书,都认为联邦巡回法院不恰当地放宽了非显而易见性标准。这些批评大多集中在联邦巡回法院对非明显性调查的部分执行——暗示测试。建议测试用于查询在发明创建之前是否存在制作发明的建议。据称,联邦巡回法院要求建议完全来自先前技术参考。法院不考虑其他证据,即可能存在于相关技术熟练人员所知道的或正在解决的问题的性质中的未记录的建议。本文对这一批评的有效性进行了检验,发现联邦巡回法院并没有缩小建议检验的范围。通过对法理的全新审视,本文得出结论,最高院在建议检验中采用了类似证据的方面。那些看起来法院只关注现有技术的案例实际上是法院运用暗示测试的证据方面的例子。暗示测试的证据规则排除了没有包含必要细节和分析的暗示的无证证据。这一证据规则是为了调整所需的细节和分析水平,以适应相关技术的复杂性而量身定制的。因此,暗示测试的证据规则有助于减少对暗示证据的高估以及由此产生的不正确的明显性决定。然而,该规则本身可能产生一些错误的非显而易见性判定,特别是在美国专利和商标局,因此在这种情况下应予以放宽。最后,从证据的角度来看待和评价专利原则在专利法中的应用远远超出了不明显性和暗示检验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信