Hubbry Logo
Inventive step and non-obviousnessInventive step and non-obviousnessMain
Open search
Inventive step and non-obviousness
Community hub
Inventive step and non-obviousness
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Inventive step and non-obviousness
Inventive step and non-obviousness
Inventive step and non-obviousness
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Patent law
Overviews
Procedural concepts
Patentability requirements and related concepts
Other legal requirements
By region / country
By specific subject matter
See also

The inventive step and non-obviousness reflect a general patentability requirement present in most patent laws, according to which an invention should be sufficiently inventive—i.e., non-obvious—in order to be patented.[1] In other words, "[the] nonobviousness principle asks whether the invention is an adequate distance beyond or above the state of the art".[2]

The expression "inventive step" is used in European Patent Convention and in Patent Cooperation Treaty, while the expression "non-obviousness" is predominantly used in United States patent law.[1] The expression "inventiveness" is sometimes used as well.[3] Although the basic principle is roughly the same, the assessment of the inventive step and non-obviousness varies from one country to another. For instance, the practice of the European Patent Office (EPO) differs from the practice in the United Kingdom.

Rationale

[edit]

The purpose of the inventive step, or non-obviousness, requirement is to avoid granting patents for inventions which only follow from "normal product design and development", to achieve a proper balance between the incentive provided by the patent system, namely encouraging innovation, and its social cost, namely conferring temporary monopolies.[4] In the US patent law, quid pro quo expression is used to justify the need for the non-obviousness requirement.

The non-obviousness bar is thus a measure of what society accepts as a valuable discovery.[5] Additional reasons for the non-obviousness requirement are providing incentives for fundamental research rather than for "incremental improvements", and minimizing the "proliferation of economically insignificant patents that are expensive to search and to license".[6]

Inducement theory

[edit]

According to the inducement theory, "if an idea is so obvious that people in the field would develop it without much effort, then the incentives provided by the patent system may be unnecessary to generate the idea".[7] Thus, there is a need "to develop some means of weeding out those inventions which would not be disclosed or devised but for the inducement of a patent."[8] Merges and Duffy[9] regret that "the inducement standard was not influential in the legal doctrine, and its absence from subsequent case law raises one of the great unanswered questions of patent law: How can courts continue to ignore a seemingly reasonable and theoretically solid approach to determining patentability?"

Controversies and alternatives

[edit]

While trying to weed out the "easy" inventions, the non-obviousness requirement brings in several downsides to the overall patent system, particularly in the pharmaceutical field, which depends on patent protection most heavily. For example,

  1. "The nonobviousness standard has the ironic effect of turning progress in the pharmaceutical sciences against itself because the standard withholds patent protection from drugs based on the scientific advances that allowed researchers to identify them as ones that are likely to be effective." Pharmaceutical companies "frequently abandon promising drug candidates on account of perceived weaknesses in their patent protection". "The problem of obvious—and thus unpatentable—drugs promises to grow worse over time because the nonobviousness requirement, almost by definition, turns progress in the pharmaceutical sciences against itself; that is, it denies patent protection to new drugs based on the very advances in science that led to their discovery." "The real problem is the nature of the nonobviousness requirement itself, which withholds patent protection from the drugs that appear most promising in early research and penalizes progress in the pharmaceutical sciences. Given these strange tendencies within the doctrine, it is not surprising that drug researchers frequently encounter the nonobviousness requirement as a barrier to patenting their discoveries."[10] "The social costs of losing such drugs likely far outweigh any benefits to the public from faster access to inexpensive generics of the unpatentable drugs that actually reach the market." "Whenever the patent rules prevent the introduction of a new drug or therapy, or even just delay it, as may be happening with finasteride (for preventing prostate cancer), the injury to the public can be severe." "Current patent policy, which withholds patent protection from drugs because they lack novelty or are obvious, therefore poses a substantial threat to the public's well-being." "the patent standards suppress pharmaceutical innovation by limiting patents to innovative new ideas for drugs such that the system offers no incentive for the development of socially valuable drugs that were disclosed or made to look promising in earlier publications."[11] Also, it has been suggested that "since the FDA's clinical-trial requirements are the reason why firms rarely develop drugs without protection from generic competitors", the FDA should be able to administer the reward of exclusivity with the need for that protection, offering a convenient fix for the patent system's inadequacies in promoting drug development.[12]
  2. The fact that an inventor's own disclosures can be used as a prior art—not only for novelty but also for non-obviousness analysis—forces both for-profit and not-for-profit (since the Bayh–Dole Act in the US) business to delay (or to completely stop) dissemination of their research findings, complicates collaborations between different institutions, and gets in the way of the patents' constitutional purpose" to promote Progress of Science".
  3. Very often the original patent on the invention, that has a very strong inventive step representing a major breakthrough invention, is filed more than 20 years before the commercialization of its technology commences, and the original inventors do not reap the fruits of their invention. Instead, people who came up later (closer to the start of the commercialization) with incremental improvements to the original technology, with such improvements have much weaker inventive step(s), get a better chance to monetize their invention(s). A famous example of such situation is Vanadium Redox-Flow Battery technology, invented and patented originally by Pelligri and Spaziante in 1978 (UK Patent 2030349, Oronzio de Nori Impianti Elettrochimici S.p.A., 1978) but not widely commercialized until ca 2017.[13]

Although all countries with actively functional patent systems currently have a requirement for inventive step, the need for such a doctrine has been questioned. For example, "substantial novelty" has been proposed as an alternative approach.[14] Also, many countries have, in addition to patents, utility models, which have a lower (or none) requirement for non-obviousness in return for a shorter monopoly term duration. The availability of utility model protection minimizes for inventors, developers and manufacturers the risk associated with the uncertainty of non-obviousness analysis (litigation) outcome (see below).

In the US, there is no gradation stronger inventive step - longer patent duration, and all-or-nothing approach is used. Under such a system, drawing the line between inventive(all) and obvious (nothing) is ambiguous, as numerous lawsuits with changing outcomes on appeal illustrate (e.g. Sanofi-Aventis GmbH v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, 748 F. 3d 1354 (Fed. Circuit 2014)[15]). Also, unique to the United States is the possibility to introduce as the evidence of non/obviousness facts, discovered after filing the patent application in question. (e.g. Knoll Pharm. Co. v Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. 367 F.3d 1381, 1385(Fed. Circ.2004) and Genetics Inst., LLC v. Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc. 655 F.3d 1291, 1307 (Fed.Circ.2011), In re Khelgatian 53 CCPA 1441, 364 F.2d 870, 876 (1966)).

Although the need for low bar of inventiveness has been well acknowledged, the proposed means of actually measuring such a bar have all been rather unsuccessful despite 200 years of case law history. "A standard that is clear and easy to apply consistently will mark where the non-obviousness bar exactly rests, providing society as a whole, and lawmakers in particular, with a benchmark to gauge the patent system's efficacy. Moreover, such a standard will allow the lower courts to determine non-obviousness correctly and consistently, at least hypothetically reducing uncertainty, inducing uniformity, and lowering reversal odds."[5] Mr. Cecil D. Quillen Jr., Senior Advisor to Putnam, Hayes and Bartlett, Inc., and former General Counsel to the Eastman-Kodak Company, concurs: "The PTO should apply the same standard followed in the courts so that patentees receive a patent that is worthy of respect rather than merely an invitation to the roulette wheel of litigation."[16] The US Supreme Court, however, has criticised the patent agency for failing to follow the same standards as the courts:

[I]t must be remembered that the primary responsibility for sifting out unpatentable material lies in the Patent Office. To await litigation is, for all practical purposes, to debilitate the patent system. We have observed a notorious difference between the standards applied by the Patent Office and by the courts. While many reasons can be adduced to explain the discrepancy, one may well be the free rein often exercised by Examiners in their use of the concept of "invention".[17]

Jurisdictions

[edit]

Canada

[edit]
Main article: Novelty and non-obviousness in Canadian patent law

The requirement for non-obviousness is codified under section 28.3 of the Patent Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. P-4).[18]

28.3 The subject-matter defined by a claim in an application for a patent in Canada must be subject-matter that would not have been obvious on the claim date to a person skilled in the art or science to which it pertains, having regard to
(a) information disclosed more than one year before the filing date by the applicant, or by a person who obtained knowledge, directly or indirectly, from the applicant in such a manner that the information became available to the public in Canada or elsewhere; and
(b) information disclosed before the claim date by a person not mentioned in paragraph (a) in such a manner that the information became available to the public in Canada or elsewhere.

The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the test for non-obviousness laid out in Windsurfing International Inc. v. Tabur Marine (Great Britain) Ltd.[19] in Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi‑Synthelabo Canada Inc.:

  1. Identify the notional "person skilled in the art" and identify the relevant common general knowledge of that person;
  2. Identify the inventive concept of the claim in question or if that cannot readily be done, construe it;
  3. Identify what, if any, differences exist between the matter cited as forming part of the "state of the art" and the inventive concept of the claim or the claim as construed;
  4. Viewed without any knowledge of the alleged invention as claimed, do those differences constitute steps which would have been obvious to the person skilled in the art or do they require any degree of invention?

Canadian courts also recognize the equivalents of the US objective indicia, i.e. Factors That Support Patentability of an Invention [20][self-published source?]:

  1. Long felt but unsatisfied need for the invention while the needed implementing arts and elements had long been available;
  2. Appreciation that a problem existed and what the problem was were previously unseen by those skilled in the art;
  3. Substantial attempts by those skilled in the art to fill the need of (1) or the cope with difficulties arising from the failure to understand the problem of (2);
  4. Commercial success of the invention causally related to the invention itself rather than to factors such as advertising or attractive packaging;
  5. Replacement in the industry of the prior art devices by the patented invention;
  6. Prompt copying of the patentee's invention by competitors;
  7. Acquiescence by the industry to the patent's validity by honouring the patent through taking licenses or not infringing the patent, or both:
  8. The existence of prior art or knowledge teaching away from the technical direction taken by the patentee;
  9. Unexpectedness of the results of the invention to those skilled in the art; and
  10. Disbelief and incredulity on the part of those skilled in the art that the patentee's approach worked.

European Patent Convention (EPC)

[edit]
Main article: Inventive step under the European Patent Convention

Pursuant to Article 52(1) in conjunction with Article 56, first sentence, EPC, European patents shall be granted for inventions which, among other things, involve an inventive step, that is, the invention, having regard to the state of the art, must not be obvious to a person skilled in the art.

The Examining Divisions, the Opposition Divisions, and the Boards of Appeal of the EPO almost always apply the "problem-solution approach" in order to assess and decide whether an invention involves an inventive step. The approach consists in:

  1. identifying the closest prior art, the most relevant prior art, or at least a realistic starting point;
  2. determining the objective technical problem, that is, determining, in the view of the closest prior art, the technical problem which the claimed invention addresses and successfully solves; and
  3. examining whether or not the claimed solution to the objective technical problem is obvious for the skilled person in view of the state of the art in general.

This last step is conducted according to the "could-would approach". Pursuant to this approach, the question to address in order to assess whether the invention involves an inventive step is the following (the question is the climax of the problem-solution approach):

Is there any teaching in the prior art, as a whole, that would, not simply could, have prompted the skilled person, faced with the objective technical problem formulated when considering the technical features not disclosed by the closest prior art, to modify or adapt said closest prior art while taking account of that teaching [the teaching of the prior art, not just the teaching of the closest prior art], thereby arriving at something falling within the terms of the claims, and thus achieving what the invention achieves?

If the skilled person would have been prompted to modify the closest prior art in such a way as to arrive at something falling within the terms of the claims, then the invention does not involve an inventive step.

The point is not whether the skilled person could have arrived at the invention by adapting or modifying the closest prior art, but whether he would have done so because the prior art would have incited him to do so in the hope of solving the objective technical problem or in expectation of some improvement or advantage. This must have been the case for the skilled person before the filing or priority date valid for the claim under examination.

United Kingdom

[edit]

The fundamental test for assessing whether there is an inventive step remains the statutory test: Actavis v Novartis [2010] EWCA Civ 82 at [17]. That test is as follows: an invention shall be taken to involve an inventive step if it is 'not obvious' to 'a person skilled in the art', having regard to any matter which forms part of the 'state of the art' by virtue of section 2(2): s 3 Patents Act 1977.

Courts of the United Kingdom have adopted a general framework to assist in approaching (not answering) the fundamental statutory test. It is known as the Windsurfing or Pozzoli test.

In Windsurfing International Inc. v Tabur Marine (GB) Ltd. [1985] RPC 59 the Court of Appeal suggested the following framework:

  1. Identify the inventive concept embodied in the patent;
  2. Impute to a normally skilled but unimaginative addressee what was common general knowledge in the art at the priority date;
  3. Identify the differences (if any) between the matter cited and the alleged invention; and
  4. Decide whether those differences (viewed without any knowledge of the alleged invention) constituted steps which would have been 'obvious' to the skilled man, or whether they required any degree of invention.

This test has been slightly reworked in the more recent Court of Appeal case Pozzoli Spa v BDMO SA & Anor [2007] EWCA Civ 588 (22 June 2007):[21]

  1. (a) Identify the notional "person skilled in the art", (b) Identify the relevant common general knowledge of that person;
  2. Identify the inventive concept of the claim in question or if that cannot readily be done, construe it;
  3. Identify what, if any, differences exist between the matter cited as forming part of the "state of the art" and the inventive concept of the claim or the claim as construed;
  4. Viewed without any knowledge of the alleged invention as claimed, do those differences constitute steps which would have been obvious to the person skilled in the art or do they require any degree of invention?

In Schlumberger Holdings Ltd versus Electromagnetic Geoservices AS [2010] EWCA Civ 819 (28 July 2010), the Court of Appeal clarified that the fictional skilled addressee (which may be a skilled team) used for determining inventive step can vary from the one used for determining claim construction or sufficiency.

United States

[edit]
Main article: Non-obviousness in United States patent law

"Non-obviousness" is the term used in US patent law to describe one of the requirements that an invention must meet to qualify for patentability, codified in 35 U.S.C. §103 in 1952. One of the main requirements of patentability in the U.S. is that the invention being patented is not obvious, meaning that a "person having ordinary skill in the art" (PHOSITA) would not know how to solve the problem at which the invention is directed by using exactly the same mechanism. Since the PHOSITA standard turned to be too ambiguous in practice, the U.S. Supreme Court provided later two more useful approaches, which currently control the practical analysis of non-obviousness by patent examiners and courts: Graham et al. v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City et al., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) gives guidelines of what is "non-obvious", and KSR v. Teleflex (2006) gives guidelines of what is "obvious".

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Inventive step and non-obviousness

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Inventive step and non-obviousness are synonymous criteria in patent law mandating that an demonstrate a non-trivial technical advance over the to qualify for protection, assessed from the perspective of a hypothetical person skilled in the relevant field at the invention's priority date. This requirement filters out patents for mere combinations or predictable variations that a competent practitioner could derive without undue experimentation, thereby reserving exclusivity for genuine innovations that advance technological progress. In the United States, codified in 35 U.S.C. § 103, non-obviousness evaluates whether the claimed as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, considering the scope and content of , differences between the and claims, the level of ordinary skill, and objective indicia such as commercial success or long-felt need, as established in Graham v. Co. (383 U.S. 1, 1966). The U.S. and Office applies this through a flexible, fact-intensive inquiry that rejects hindsight-driven reconstructions while permitting motivations to combine references drawn from the itself. Under the European Patent Convention's Article 56, inventive step similarly deems an invention patentable if not obvious to the skilled person in view of , typically via the problem-and-solution approach: identifying the closest , defining the objective technical problem, and verifying whether the solution involves an inventive leap rather than an expected adaptation. Though harmonized in principle under treaties like the , jurisdictional variances in evidentiary burdens and reference selection can yield divergent patent outcomes, underscoring the doctrine's role in balancing inventor incentives against access.

Definition and Core Principles

Conceptual Foundation

The inventive step, known as non-obviousness in , constitutes a fundamental criterion for patentability, mandating that an represent more than a predictable or routine extension of existing knowledge. Under Article 56 of the , an involves an inventive step if it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art in light of , which encompasses all publicly available information prior to the filing date. Similarly, 35 U.S.C. § 103 provides that a claimed is unpatentable if the differences between it and the would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of , irrespective of novelty under § 102. This requirement distinguishes genuine technological advances from mere workshop improvements or combinations that a competent practitioner could achieve through standard application of known techniques. Conceptually, the doctrine rests on that patent protection should incentivize substantial creative contributions to technological progress, rather than rewarding incremental modifications that emerge inevitably from the cumulative efforts of skilled workers. By denying exclusivity to obvious subject matter, the requirement prevents the patent system from encumbering routine development or stifling competition through a proliferation of trivial monopolies, thereby preserving the for further innovation. This aligns with the utilitarian foundation of , where temporary exclusive rights are granted only for contributions that demonstrably surpass the baseline of expected skill, ensuring that societal benefits from disclosure outweigh the costs of restricted access. Empirical analyses of grants indicate that without such a filter, approval rates for low-merit applications could exceed 90% in certain fields, diluting incentives for high-impact inventions. Central to the assessment is the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA), an objective construct embodying average expertise in the relevant technical domain at the invention's priority date, equipped with typical tools and knowledge but lacking extraordinary creativity. Obviousness is evaluated , from the POSA's perspective without knowledge of the invention itself, to counteract that might retroactively deem advances trivial. This framework demands evidence that the invention yields unexpected technical effects, addresses longstanding unsolved problems, or integrates in a manner defying routine motivation, thereby grounding eligibility in verifiable causal advances over the prior art baseline.

Relation to Novelty and Utility

The requirements for inventive step (known as non-obviousness ) and novelty form interconnected yet distinct pillars of , with inventive step presupposing novelty as a foundational threshold. Novelty demands that an invention not be identically anticipated by any single piece of , meaning it must introduce at least one new feature not explicitly or inherently disclosed in existing knowledge. In contrast, inventive step evaluates whether those novel differences would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, considering the as a whole; without novelty, there is no basis for assessing inventive merit, as an identical invention offers nothing to deem non-obvious. This distinction ensures that patents reward genuine advances rather than mere rediscoveries or trivial repetitions of the known. Utility, or industrial applicability, operates independently of both novelty and inventive step, focusing on the invention's capacity to produce a technical effect or solve a practical problem in a manner that is reproducible and beneficial. Under U.S. law, for instance, requires that the invention be useful within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101, such as providing specific, substantial, and credible benefits, without regard to whether the solution is new or . Similarly, the European Patent Convention's Article 57 mandates susceptibility of industrial application, emphasizing functionality over originality. An may satisfy —demonstrating operational efficacy—but fail inventive step if its novel elements represent predictable combinations of , or vice versa, underscoring that all three criteria must align for grant without overlap in their substantive scrutiny. This tripartite framework, codified in statutes like 35 U.S.C. §§ 101–103 and Articles 52–57 of the EPC, prevents over-patenting by filtering out inventions that, while new and workable, lack the intellectual leap meriting exclusivity; for example, a but obvious optimization of a known process might meet novelty and utility but bar due to absent inventive step. Judicial interpretations, such as in Graham v. Co. (383 U.S. 1, 1966), reinforce that non-obviousness supplements rather than subsumes novelty and utility, requiring evidence of secondary considerations like commercial success only where obviousness arises post-novelty confirmation. The separation mitigates in examination, ensuring inventive step analysis commences from a verified baseline of non-anticipation.

Historical Evolution

Statutory Origins

The non-obviousness requirement in received explicit statutory codification through 35 U.S.C. § 103, enacted as part of the Patent Act of 1952, which states that a patent may not be obtained if the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, notwithstanding novelty under section 102. This provision marked a shift from prior judge-made doctrine, where inventiveness was inferred from terms like "new invention" in statutes such as the 1793 and 1836 Patent Acts, but without a dedicated obviousness test. The 1952 Act's language, including the emphasis on the invention "as a whole" and the temporally bounded perspective of the skilled artisan, responded to ambiguities in pre-statutory , such as the Supreme Court's 1851 Hotchkiss v. Greenwood ruling, which rejected patents for mere substitutions requiring no more ingenuity than ordinary mechanical skill. In the European context, inventive step was statutorily harmonized for participating states under Article 56 of the (EPC), adopted on October 5, 1973, and effective from October 7, 1977, which deems an invention inventive if, considering , it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art. This article built on disparate national statutes predating the EPC, such as those in the United Kingdom's Patents Act 1949 (section 32), which conditioned patentability on novelty plus "an inventive step," and Germany's Patent Act of 1932 (as amended), incorporating requirements for non-obvious progress over . The EPC's formulation avoided prescribing a rigid test, allowing interpretive flexibility while aligning with the Paris Convention's implicit demand for industrial applicability and novelty, but elevating inventive merit to prevent monopolies on routine advancements. These codifications reflected post-World War II efforts to balance innovation incentives with public access to incremental knowledge, influenced by economic analyses questioning whether patents should reward only truly meritorious advances. In both jurisdictions, the statutes deliberately omitted detailed assessment methodologies, delegating such to judicial and administrative elaboration, though the U.S. provision's hindsight safeguards—focusing on contemporaneous knowledge—anticipated common pitfalls in obviousness evaluation. Subsequent revisions, like the U.S. Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011, refined procedural aspects but preserved the core 1952 language.

Landmark Judicial Developments

In Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1850), the U.S. articulated an early judicial standard for non-obviousness, holding that substituting or clay for wood or metal in doorknobs did not constitute patentable invention, as it required no more than the skill of an ordinary mechanic familiar with the business. The decision emphasized that patentability demands "more ingenuity and skill than were possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business," thereby introducing non-obviousness as a distinct requirement beyond mere novelty under pre-1952 U.S. patent law. The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Graham v. John Deere Co. (1966) provided a structured framework for assessing non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, enacted in the 1952 Patent Act to codify judicial precedents like Hotchkiss. The Court outlined four factual inquiries: the scope and content of the ; the differences between the claimed invention and elements; the level of ordinary in the pertinent field; and objective indicia of non-obviousness, such as commercial success, long-felt need, and failure of others. These "Graham factors" invalidated patents on plow components deemed obvious combinations of known elements, reinforcing that non-obviousness must be evaluated from the perspective of a person of ordinary without . In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (2007), the U.S. expanded the non-obviousness inquiry, rejecting the Federal Circuit's rigid "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" (TSM) test as overly narrow and inconsistent with Graham. The Court held a patent on an adjustable automotive pedal with invalid, as combining known elements involved predictable improvements accessible to a skilled , even absent explicit suggestions. It advocated a flexible, categorical approach, including obviousness in design incentives or finite identifiable alternatives, while affirming secondary considerations' role but cautioning against their overuse to salvage weak claims. In the , Windsurfing International Inc. v. Tabur Marine (Great Britain) Ltd. (1985) established a seminal four-step test for inventive step under the Patents Act 1977, influencing (EPC) jurisprudence. The Court of Appeal invalidated a windsurfing board patent, outlining steps to: (1) construe the patent to identify the inventive concept; (2) impute normal knowledge and skill to the skilled addressee; (3) identify differences from ; and (4) assess whether such differences were obvious. This structured approach mitigated hindsight reconstruction, prioritizing the skilled person's forward-looking perspective over . The Court of Appeal in Pozzoli SPA v. BDMO SA (2007) refined the test into a clearer protocol, adding an explicit initial step to identify the notional skilled person and their attributes before evaluating obviousness. Applied to cheese grating devices, the reformulation—(1) identify the inventive concept; (2) assume the skilled person's ; (3) identify differences from the ; and (4) determine obviousness—upheld the patent's validity by emphasizing objective differences not bridged by routine steps. This iteration aligned practice more closely with EPC Article 56, promoting consistency in assessing whether the invention would have been obvious to the skilled person without inventive effort.

Theoretical Justifications

Inducement and Incentive Theories

The incentive theory posits that patents promote technological progress by providing inventors with exclusive rights that recoup costs, thereby encouraging investment in that might otherwise be underproduced due to free-rider problems in knowledge creation. In the context of non-obviousness, this theory justifies denying protection to obvious inventions because such incremental advances are likely to emerge through routine competitive pressures or market rewards, without requiring the additional stimulus of a monopoly; granting patents for them would impose social costs like restricted access and litigation without commensurate benefits in induced . Empirical studies supporting this view indicate that low-level innovations often diffuse rapidly via imitation or first-mover advantages, rendering incentives superfluous and potentially counterproductive by fragmenting the . Closely related, the inducement theory—articulated by the U.S. in Graham v. John Deere Co. (383 U.S. 1, 1966)—restricts to those inventions that "would not be disclosed or devised but for the inducement of a ," emphasizing an economic assessment over subjective creativity. This standard operationalizes non-obviousness by evaluating whether alternative non-patent incentives, such as lead-time advantages or low experimentation costs, would suffice to motivate the invention from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art; if so, the invention fails the test, as the patent's monopoly would yield net societal harm without advancing disclosure or creation. For instance, combinations of elements predictable to skilled practitioners are excluded because their development aligns with baseline economic incentives absent patent prospects, preserving resources for truly uncertain endeavors. Both theories underscore a utilitarian : the non-obviousness requirement calibrates scope to maximize net by filtering out low-value claims that dilute efforts and hinder cumulative progress, as evidenced by historical data showing patent thickets from lax standards correlating with reduced follow-on inventions in fields like software and . While incentive theory broadly frames s as forward-looking motivators, inducement refines this for the obviousness threshold by demanding proof of patent-dependency, a criterion that courts apply through factors like the scope of and teaching away, ensuring alignment with constitutional mandates under Article I, Section 8.

Alternative Rationales and Critiques

One alternative rationale posits that non-obviousness functions as a screening mechanism to distinguish significant inventions from trivial ones, ensuring patents are reserved for advances that genuinely merit exclusive rights and thereby avoiding the social costs of over-patenting. In economic models, comprises a phase yielding a blueprint and a development phase requiring external financing, with innovators differing in ; a positive non-obviousness threshold optimally excludes inefficient researchers prone to , reducing wasteful activity even if it discards some marginal projects, as the net gain in development quality outweighs losses. Another justification views non-obviousness as enhancing the system's disclosure function by mandating that protected inventions contribute substantively to public knowledge, rather than merely repackaging predictable elements, thus advancing the useful arts without granting monopolies for routine recombinations. Critiques of these rationales highlight the standard's inherent indeterminacy—lacking precise metrics for the required inventive quantum or the ordinary skilled artisan's perspective—which fosters , inconsistent judicial outcomes, and erroneous grants of on obvious subject matter. This unpredictability undermines screening by encouraging excessive applications for low-value , fostering thickets that raise transaction costs and deter follow-on , while simultaneously under-incentivizing bold advances due to heightened invalidation risks. further questions the broader incentive underpinnings, revealing that reliance on as primary motivators is overstated, with substantial occurring via non-patented means even in high-capital sectors, implying that stringent non-obviousness may inefficiently prioritize monopoly rewards over intrinsic inventive drivers.

Assessment Frameworks

Objective Tests and Factors

In patent examination and litigation, objective tests and factors provide structured criteria for evaluating whether an involves an inventive step or is non-obvious, emphasizing factual over subjective judgment to counteract . These frameworks require examiners and courts to consider verifiable evidence such as disclosures, technical differences, and the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), ensuring decisions rest on empirical distinctions rather than post-invention rationalization. In the United States, the in Graham v. John Deere Co. (1966) outlined four primary factual inquiries for non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103: (1) the scope and content of the ; (2) the differences between the claimed and the ; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the relevant field; and (4) secondary considerations evidencing non-obviousness, including commercial success due to the 's merits, long-felt but unresolved needs, failures by others to solve the problem, and unexpected results. These factors, reaffirmed in subsequent decisions like KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (2007), guide the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to assess whether a POSITA would find the obvious based on explicit teachings, reasonable inferences, or combinations of known elements yielding predictable results. Secondary considerations serve as objective indicia, with evidence such as licensing agreements or sales data tied directly to the 's unique features carrying greater weight than mere market entry. Under the (EPC), Article 56 employs the problem-solution approach as an objective methodology for inventive step assessment, comprising three stages: identifying the closest (typically the most relevant disclosure realistically considered by a skilled person); deriving the objective technical problem from differences between the claimed and that , excluding any pointer derived from the itself; and evaluating whether the skilled person, starting from the closest and faced with that problem, would arrive at the claimed solution as obvious without inventive effort. This approach, detailed in EPO Guidelines for Examination, prioritizes technical effects and advantages supported by the application as filed, such as improved efficiency or novel properties, while rejecting ex post facto reconstructions. For combinations of , the EPO requires a reasonable expectation of success based on explicit motivations or convergent technical trends, not mere possibility. Other jurisdictions adapt similar objective elements; for instance, the United Kingdom's Intellectual Property Office aligns with EPO practice but allows flexibility in selecting starting points, while Canada's Patent Act mandates consideration of prior art differences and the inventor's skill level alongside secondary factors like commercial viability. Across systems, these tests underscore causal links between claimed features and non-obvious outcomes, with —such as experimental data demonstrating superior performance—elevating the rigor of findings over speculative assertions.

Role of Hindsight Bias Mitigation

Hindsight bias in the assessment of inventive step or non-obviousness refers to the cognitive tendency of examiners, courts, or tribunals to reconstruct the through the lens of the claimed invention, thereby underestimating the inventive merit by deeming combinations or modifications obvious only after knowing the solution. This bias undermines the perspective required under statutes like 35 U.S.C. § 103 or Article 56 of the , which mandate evaluation from the viewpoint of a having ordinary in the art (PHOSITA) at the priority date, without post-invention knowledge. Mitigation strategies emphasize structured analytical frameworks to enforce chronological fidelity and objective evidence, ensuring decisions reflect contemporaneous incentives rather than retrospective predictability. In the United States, the Graham factors—encompassing the scope and content of the , differences between the claimed and , and the level of ordinary skill—provide a foundational structure to compartmentalize factual inquiries before reaching the legal obviousness conclusion, thereby curbing hindsight reconstruction. Federal Circuit precedents, such as , Inc. v. Garlock, Inc. (721 F.2d 1540, Fed. Cir. 1983), explicitly caution decision-makers to "forget what he or she has been taught at the trial about the claimed and cast the mind back to the time the was made," reinforcing the need for evidence-based findings on pre-invention motivations. The Supreme Court's KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (550 U.S. 398, 2007) further advanced mitigation by rejecting rigid "teaching-suggestion-motivation" tests in favor of flexible yet reasoned analysis, requiring articulated rationales grounded in the 's explicit or implicit teachings to avoid impermissible ex post combinations. Under the , the problem-solution approach (PSA) mitigates hindsight by sequencing the analysis: identifying the closest based on objective criteria like technical similarity and effect equivalence, formulating an objective technical problem derived from effects achieved over that (without incorporating the solution), and applying a "could-would" test for whether a skilled person would plausibly arrive at the claimed features as a solution. EPO Guidelines for Examination (G-VII, 5) warn against ex post facto analysis, such as selecting or problems influenced by the invention's success, and limit combinations typically to two references unless explicitly motivated, reducing the risk of cherry-picking disparate teachings retrospectively. Cases like T 0605/20 (EPO Board of Appeal, 2022) illustrate enforcement, invalidating inventive step objections where problem formulation incorporated hindsight from clinical outcomes rather than pre-invention . Both jurisdictions leverage secondary considerations—such as commercial success tied to the , satisfaction of long-felt needs, or teachings away in the —as empirical rebuttals to prima facie obviousness, providing contemporaneous indicators that counter subjective bias. These factors, weighed case-specifically, gain prominence in close cases; for instance, U.S. data from 1986–2006 show they swayed outcomes in under 33% of appeals but proved dispositive in fewer than 2%, underscoring their role as safeguards rather than defaults. Experimental studies confirm frameworks like Graham or PSA reduce but do not eliminate bias, with mock jurors exhibiting persistent hindsight effects even under instructed protocols, necessitating ongoing judicial vigilance.

Jurisdictional Implementations

United States Non-Obviousness

In , non-obviousness is codified in 35 U.S.C. § 103, which provides that a patent may not be obtained if the differences between the claimed and the are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious, at the time the was made, to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to which the subject matter pertains. This standard applies regardless of whether the is identically disclosed in the under 35 U.S.C. § 102, emphasizing that obviousness is assessed prospectively from the date, excluding subsequent or the manner of itself. The provision aims to ensure patents reward only those representing genuine advances beyond what skilled artisans would routinely achieve. The in Graham v. Co. (1966) articulated the foundational framework for obviousness analysis, requiring consideration of: (1) the scope and content of the ; (2) the differences between the claimed invention and the ; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the relevant art; and (4) objective indicia of non-obviousness, or secondary considerations, such as commercial success, long-felt but unresolved needs, the failure of others, and unexpected results. In the context of AI systems, evidence supporting non-obviousness for combinations of known techniques includes esoteric combinations yielding super-additive results and unexpected outcomes, such as quantified synergy, performance gains, and generalization across models. These Graham factors provide a structured, evidence-based inquiry to mitigate subjective , with secondary considerations serving as a critical safeguard against erroneously deeming inventions obvious after the fact. Courts and the Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) apply this test on a case-by-case basis, determining the PHOSITA's perspective through factors like the inventor's education, prior art complexity, and industry rapidity of innovation. Subsequent jurisprudence refined the analysis in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (2007), where the rejected the Federal Circuit's rigid "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" (TSM) test as overly narrow, holding instead for a flexible, expansive approach to combinations of familiar elements. Obviousness arises if a PHOSITA would have had a reason—drawn from market pressures, design incentives, or —to combine elements yielding predictable results, without requiring explicit teachings. The Court identified scenarios like combining known alternatives or applying a known technique to a similar problem as presumptively obvious, emphasizing that the invention's subject matter as a whole must lack more than ordinary skill's incremental progress. USPTO examination guidelines, updated in February 2024, reinforce KSR's flexibility while mandating explicit findings on each Graham factor, including articulated motivation to combine and evidence rebutting obviousness via secondary considerations. Examiners must avoid hindsight reconstruction, but may rely on or ordinary creativity where suggests no more than routine experimentation. In litigation, Federal Circuit precedents apply these standards strictly, invalidating claims where combinations yield expected outcomes, as in adjustable pedal assemblies in KSR itself, while upholding non-obviousness when unexpected synergies or teaching away in are shown. This framework balances innovation incentives against over-patenting minor variations, with empirical data indicating heightened scrutiny post-KSR reduced allowance rates for borderline applications.

European Patent Convention Inventive Step

Article 56 of the (EPC) provides that an shall be considered as involving an inventive step if, having regard to , it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art; this requirement applies in addition to novelty and industrial applicability for patent grant by the (EPO). The provision aims to exclude inventions that represent mere routine developments, ensuring patents reward genuine technical advances rather than predictable optimizations. The EPO, as the administering body, interprets and applies this through its Boards of Appeal and examination guidelines, emphasizing ex ante obviousness without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the . To assess inventive step objectively, the EPO employs the problem-solution approach, originating from decision T 2/83 (Pioneer electronic/, issued 15 March 1984), which structures the evaluation into three stages to avoid subjective bias. First, the closest is identified as the document or combination most relevant as a realistic starting point, selected based on sharing the essential technical features with the claimed and representing a promising field for improvement. Second, technical problem is formulated from the technical differences between this prior art and the claimed invention, focusing on the effects or advantages demonstrably achieved by the solution, rather than problems stated in the application. Third, it is determined whether a person skilled in the art, starting from the closest prior art and confronted with the objective technical problem, would find the claimed features obvious, using a "could-would" test: whether modification was possible within routine skills and whether there was a reasonable expectation of success prompting the change. The person skilled in the art is a hypothetical figure of average skill and knowledge in the technical domain, diligent yet non-inventive, capable of understanding (as defined in Article 54 EPC) and applying without undue experimentation. Combinations of require a or pointer for the skilled person to combine them, beyond mere possibility, to establish obviousness. For inventions with non-technical elements, such as computer-implemented methods involving mathematical algorithms or business rules, the COMVIK approach (from T 641/00, issued 26 September 2002) integrates eligibility and inventive step by disregarding non-technical features unless they contribute a further technical effect over the , assessed within the problem-solution framework. This ensures that inventive step protects only technical contributions, aligning with EPC exclusions under Article 52(2). The Guidelines for Examination, updated annually (latest version effective 1 November 2024), codify these principles, guiding examiners to require evidence of non-obvious effects where disputed.

United Kingdom Approach

In the , the requirement for an inventive step is codified in section 3 of the Patents Act 1977, which states that an invention involves an inventive step if it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art, considering any matter made publicly available before the invention's priority date through written or oral description, use, or other means. This focuses on the perspective of the hypothetical skilled person, who possesses the common general knowledge (CGK) in the relevant field at the priority date, excluding hindsight from the invention itself. The UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) applies this during substantive examination, rejecting claims where the invention would be an obvious development over the . The primary judicial framework for assessing inventive step emerged from Windsurfing International Inc v Tabur Marine (GB) Ltd RPC 59, establishing a structured four-step test to mitigate hindsight bias: (1) construe the patent to identify the inventive concept; (2) impute to the skilled person the CGK they would have at the priority date; (3) identify the differences between the inventive concept and the ; and (4) determine whether those differences constitute steps that would be obvious to the skilled person. This approach emphasizes a forward-looking evaluation from the priority date, without knowledge of the patent in suit. The test was refined in Pozzoli SPA v BDMO SA EWCA Civ 588, where the Court of Appeal reordered the steps for clarity: (1) identify the skilled person and their CGK; (2) identify the inventive concept in the claim; (3) identify differences from the ; and (4) assess obviousness of those differences. This formulation, endorsed in subsequent cases, allows flexibility; for instance, the inventive concept may extend beyond literal claim wording if it captures the patent's technical contribution. UK courts, including the Patents Court and Court of Appeal, apply this test in validity challenges, often cross-referencing (EPC) principles under the Patents Act 1977's alignment with Article 56 EPC, though prioritizing national precedents. In practice, obviousness is not presumed from routine experimentation but requires evidence that the skilled person would pursue the claimed solution with a reasonable expectation of success, particularly in fields like pharmaceuticals where post-priority data may inform CGK boundaries. The IPO's Manual of Patent Practice guides examiners to consider whether modifications to are "obvious to try" only if motivated by a defined problem and feasible within CGK, rejecting claims involving mere workshop improvements or predictable combinations. Secondary indicia, such as commercial success or long-felt need, may support non-obviousness if causally linked to the invention's merits, but they do not override a primary finding of obviousness. This framework balances innovation incentives with preventing monopolies on trivial advances, as affirmed in cases like Actavis UK Ltd v AG EWCA Civ 267.

Canadian Standard

In Canadian patent law, the requirement for non-obviousness is codified in section 28.3 of the Patent Act, which stipulates that the subject-matter defined by a claim must not have been obvious on the claim date to a person skilled in the art or science to which the invention pertains, considering the prior art. This assessment evaluates whether the invention involves an inventive step beyond what would be predictable to such a skilled person at the relevant time. The Supreme Court of Canada established the prevailing framework for obviousness in Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2008 SCC 61, adopting a structured, four-step analysis inspired by the UK's Windsurfing International Inc. v. Tabur Marine (Griggs) Ltd. and refined in Pozzoli SPA v. BDMO SA. First, courts identify the notional person skilled in the art (PSA), typically a team of ordinary skill without inventive genius, and ascertain the common general knowledge available to them. Second, the inventive concept—or the essence of the claimed invention—is delineated, often by construing the claims in light of the specification without undue hindsight. Third, differences between the prior art (including common general knowledge and cited documents) and the inventive concept are identified. Fourth, an objective evaluation determines whether these differences represent an obvious step to the PSA, guarding against impermissible reconstruction using the patent as a blueprint. This approach supplanted the prior Beloit Canada Ltd. v. Valmet Oy test, which emphasized a "scintilla of invention" and was deemed overly stringent, aligning more closely with international standards while emphasizing predictability and expert evidence over subjective judicial intuition. In fields like pharmaceuticals, where research involves finite predictable options, an "obvious to try" threshold may apply within step four if the PSA would pursue the with reasonable expectation of success, motivated by the problem at hand, though it does not lower the bar to mere worthiness of trial without inventive merit. Courts routinely stress mitigating by confining analysis to pre-claim date knowledge, often relying on expert testimony to simulate the PSA's perspective. Subsequent Federal Court of Appeal decisions, such as Janssen Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2017 FCA 210, have clarified that the inventive concept must derive from the claims themselves rather than broader advantages, enhancing analytical rigor and reducing variability in application. This framework balances incentivizing innovation by invalidating predictable advances while upholding patents for genuine breakthroughs, with non-obviousness assessed claim-by-claim against the full scope of .

Variations in Other Jurisdictions

In , the inventive step under Article 29(2) of the Patent Act is lacking if a person skilled in the , through diligent study, could easily have conceived the claimed based on publications or uses, with examination typically involving selection of a primary reference, identification of differences from the claim, and assessment of whether motivational factors or secondary references would render the obvious. This approach emphasizes ease of conception by the skilled person without requiring explicit teaching suggestions in the , differing from U.S. non-obviousness by focusing more on synthetic motivation derived from the examiner's perspective rather than explicit hindsight-limited combinations. China's Patent Law Article 22(3) defines inventive step as requiring outstanding substantive features and significant technical progress relative to the , evaluated via a three-step method by the National Administration (CNIPA): determining the most proximate , establishing the technical problem solved by the distinguishing features, and judging whether a skilled person would recognize those features as an obvious solution absent inventive contribution. This framework permits broader combinations of disparate than in the U.S., where explicit teachings or suggestions are prioritized, potentially leading to stricter scrutiny for incremental innovations, as evidenced by CNIPA's 2023 guidelines extending preliminary inventiveness checks to utility models. For invention patents, the bar demands "significant" progress, contrasting with utility models' mere "substantive" advancement. Australia's Patents Act 1990 Section 7 deems an invention inventive unless obvious to the person skilled in the relevant art (PSIA) in light of the base and common general knowledge at the priority date, with IP Australia examiners applying the EPO-inspired "problem-solution" approach: framing the objective technical problem from the closest , identifying claimed features, and assessing obviousness without hindsight. Courts supplement this with secondary indicia like commercial or unexpected results if primary evidence is equivocal, but reject routine optimization absent evidence of inventiveness, as clarified in 2025 Federal Court rulings emphasizing the PSIA's conservative mindset over inventive leaps. This aligns closely with European practices but diverges from U.S. reliance on Graham factors by prioritizing problem framing over rigid secondary considerations. India's Patents Act 1970 Section 2(1)(ja), amended in 2005, requires an inventive step involving technical advance over existing knowledge, having economic significance, or combining features yielding such advance, assessed as non-obvious to a person skilled in the art; the manual endorses a holistic review incorporating the invention's field-specific context, rejecting mere workshop improvements without demonstrated progress. Unlike pure non-obviousness standards elsewhere, this explicitly mandates affirmative value—technical or economic—beyond avoidance of obviousness, as affirmed in 2023 precedents stressing empirical evidence of advance in crowded fields like pharmaceuticals, where post-grant oppositions frequently challenge Section 3(d) alignments for incremental drug formulations. In , the Act Article 29(2) denies inventive step if the invention would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art based on , including non-published earlier applications, with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) employing a motivation-to-combine test that scrutinizes whether technical incentives exist for merging references, as upheld in the Supreme Court's 2017 dosage administration ruling establishing a "specificity and predictability" threshold for pharmaceutical claims. This permits wider aggregation than U.S. limits on hindsight but requires concrete motivational evidence, differing from Japan's ease-of-conception focus; KIPO's 2020 guidelines highlight field-specific predictability, yielding higher rejection rates for software-related inventions absent transformative effects.

Empirical and Economic Analyses

Impact on Innovation and Patent Quality

The requirement for inventive step, by excluding obvious inventions from patent protection, aims to elevate patent quality and thereby foster genuine rather than incremental or trivial modifications. Empirical of granted reveals that a low threshold for inventive step often results in approvals for inventions contributing minimal new knowledge, which elevates system-wide costs—such as examination, , and licensing—without commensurate benefits to technological progress. This lax application can create patent thickets, where overlapping claims on minor variations impede follow-on and , particularly in cumulative fields like software and . Structural empirical tests using indicators, such as forward citations and opposition rates in the European Patent Office's polymer dataset from 1978 to 1990, confirm that objective technological quality—proxied by adherence to novelty and inventive step—positively correlates with private economic value of . Higher-quality , secured through rigorous , signal credible to investors and licensees, incentivizing toward breakthrough R&D rather than defensive filings. In contrast, diluted standards dilute this signaling, potentially reducing overall rates by crowding out high-impact inventions with low-value grants. The U.S. Supreme Court's 2007 decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., which rejected rigid teaching-suggestion-motivation tests and endorsed flexible obviousness assessments, provides evidence of stricter enforcement's effects on quality. Post-KSR, Federal Circuit and district court invalidation rates for obviousness rose significantly, with empirical studies documenting increased likelihood of patents being deemed invalid, thereby pruning weak claims from the system. This shift correlated with improved perceived patent quality, as examiners and courts more readily denied protection for predictable combinations, reducing litigation burdens and enhancing incentives for non-trivial advances. While critics argue excessive strictness might deter incremental innovation, data indicate that pre-KSR leniency more substantially undermined quality by perpetuating and blocking patents.

Litigation and Enforcement Outcomes

In federal courts, the Supreme Court's 2007 ruling in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. expanded the scope for finding patents obvious by rejecting a rigid "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" test, leading to higher invalidation rates on obviousness grounds. Empirical analysis of Federal Circuit decisions showed obviousness invalidations rising from 40% pre-KSR (before June 2006) to 57.4% post-KSR (after April 2007). In selected district courts (Northern District of California, Central District of California, Northern District of Illinois, Southern District of New York), the rate increased dramatically from 6.3% pre-KSR to 40.8% post-KSR. Administrative enforcement via inter partes review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has yielded high invalidation rates for challenged claims, predominantly on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, with all-instituted claims invalidated in approximately 70% of final written decisions through mid-2024. PTAB proceedings, instituted in about 65% of petitions since 2012, have fully invalidated around 10% of challenged patents annually, though this represents less than 0.004% of all live U.S. patents. In Europe, (EPO) opposition proceedings frequently succeed on inventive step grounds, which account for roughly 43% of patent revocations. Overall, about 38% of opposed patents were fully revoked in 2023, with an additional 35-40% maintained only after to address inventive step objections. Under the (UPC), operational since June 2023, 28% of decided cases through early 2025 found patents invalid, with inventive step (obviousness) cited as a primary ground alongside novelty and added subject matter. In national courts like , 2024 litigation invalidated 16 patents primarily on obviousness, out of 25 validity decisions.

Controversies and Debates

Subjectivity and Application Challenges

The determination of non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 or inventive step under Article 56 of the inherently involves subjective judgment, as assessors must reconstruct the perspective of a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing without the benefit of the claimed itself. This process is prone to , where knowledge of the retrospectively colors the evaluation of combinations, leading examiners to deem inventions obvious that may not have appeared so prospectively. Empirical studies, such as one involving mock jurors evaluating patent obviousness, have demonstrated that this bias significantly influences outcomes, with participants more likely to find inventions obvious after disclosure compared to blind assessments. Jury instructions aimed at mitigating hindsight have shown little effect in altering these determinations. Application challenges arise from inter-examiner variability, where identical or similar applications yield divergent obviousness rejections due to differences in individual interpretations of motivation to combine or the skilled artisan's capabilities. For instance, U.S. and Trademark Office (USPTO) data indicate high initial rejection rates—often exceeding 60% for utility applications—partly attributable to such inconsistencies, compounded by examiners' reliance on subjective assessments of "predictability" in the art. In the (EPO), the problem-solution approach seeks to structure analysis by identifying the objective technical problem and evaluating whether the solution would have been obvious, yet it retains subjective elements in defining the closest or the skilled person's expectations. Comparative analyses of rejection citations reveal only partial overlap between USPTO and EPO practices, highlighting inconsistent application even across harmonized standards. These challenges manifest in litigation and opposition proceedings, where courts or boards must navigate the same ambiguities, often resulting in overturned rejections upon —USPTO appeal success rates for obviousness hover around 40-50% in certain technology fields. Efforts to counteract bias, such as emphasizing objective indicia of non-obviousness (e.g., commercial success or long-felt need), provide evidentiary anchors but do not eliminate the core subjectivity, as their to the claimed remains disputable. Consequently, applicants face unpredictable outcomes, potentially deterring investment in borderline innovations where ex ante uncertainty discourages disclosure.

Implications for Emerging Technologies

In fields such as (AI) and , the non-obviousness requirement often complicates patentability due to the prevalence of modular algorithms and data-driven optimizations, where examiners may view inventions as predictable combinations of unless a specific technical contribution is demonstrated. For instance, under the European Patent Office's COMVIK approach for mixed inventions, AI applications must exhibit a technical effect beyond mere to satisfy inventive step, as mere improvements in training data or model parameters risk rejection as obvious. This standard encourages applicants to provide of unexpected results, such as superior performance metrics not foreseeable from existing models, but it can delay protection for incremental advances critical to rapid iteration in AI development. Biotechnology inventions face heightened scrutiny under non-obviousness, particularly where outcomes involve biological unpredictability; a solution is deemed inventive not only if results are unpredictable but also if there exists no reasonable expectation of success based on prior knowledge, as outlined in EPO guidelines. In AI-assisted biotech, such as ML models for , patents may falter if the inventive step is attributed to rather than novel molecular interactions, leading to §101-like eligibility rejections in the U.S. that overlap with obviousness analyses. This interplay risks under-patenting genuine breakthroughs in editing or , potentially shifting reliance toward trade secrets and reducing public disclosure of foundational techniques. For quantum computing, the non-obviousness threshold demands differentiation from classical analogs, as hybrid quantum-classical algorithms must show non-evident scalability or error correction advantages not derivable from prior superconducting or photonic systems. Patent examiners, often lacking domain expertise, apply hindsight bias from classical computing paradigms, which can invalidate claims on qubit entanglement methods despite their counterintuitive nature, thereby impeding commercialization of scalable quantum processors projected to disrupt cryptography by 2030. Overall, stringent non-obviousness in these domains fosters higher patent quality by filtering trivial extensions but may constrain innovation ecosystems by increasing prosecution costs—averaging 20-30% higher for software-related filings—and prompting firms to hoard know-how, as evidenced in analyses of post-Alice U.S. trends where software patent grants declined 40% from 2014-2020. Emerging AI-generated prior art further exacerbates this by flooding databases with synthetic disclosures, challenging enablement and raising validity risks for future claims.

Policy Debates on Strictness

Advocates for stricter inventive step requirements argue that a higher threshold filters out trivial modifications, reserving patent protection for genuine technological leaps that justify temporary monopolies. This position posits that lax standards dilute the patent system's core function of incentivizing risky, high-impact by flooding markets with low-value patents, which create "thickets" complicating licensing and raising transaction costs. Legal scholar Gregory Mandel highlights how the U.S. nonobviousness doctrine's indeterminacy—stemming from undefined innovation quanta, vague person-of-ordinary-skill benchmarks, and lay examiners' cognitive biases—results in excessive grants for obvious inventions, skewing investments toward minor tweaks rather than breakthroughs. Empirical models in Mandel's analysis demonstrate that such inconsistency amplifies applications for predictable advances while deterring nonobvious ones, exacerbating litigation and reducing overall . Opponents of heightened strictness contend that rigorous nonobviousness criteria risk underprotecting incremental innovations essential for cumulative technological progress, particularly in dense fields like and pharmaceuticals where combinations of known elements yield unforeseen efficiencies. They warn that an elevated bar could diminish disclosure incentives and licensing opportunities, as evidenced by economic theories emphasizing patents' in coordinating sequential inventions through prospective rights. However, these arguments often lack robust cross-sector data, with studies indicating that overly permissive grants correlate more strongly with deadweight losses than under-granting does with stalled progress. The European Patent Office's problem-solution approach, which demands solving an objectively identified technical problem without hindsight motivation, exemplifies a structured yet demanding framework that some U.S. reformers cite as a model for tightening application without broadly excluding combinatory advances. Policy proposals for calibration include probability-based tests tying patentability to the ex ante likelihood of success, aiming to reward low-probability, high-value endeavors while rejecting routine outcomes—a reform Mandel suggests could mitigate indeterminacy and align with precedents like KSR v. Teleflex (2007), which rejected rigid teaching-suggestion-motivation hurdles to enforce flexible obviousness scrutiny. Internationally, harmonization efforts under trilateral cooperation between the USPTO, EPO, and JPO underscore ongoing tensions, with critiques noting that inconsistent strictness across jurisdictions distorts global R&D allocation; for example, pre-KSR U.S. practices were perceived as more lenient than the EPO's, prompting calls for unified, evidence-driven thresholds to optimize economic returns. Despite these debates, consensus emerges from economic overviews that inventive step rigor, when consistently applied, enhances net welfare by prioritizing quality over quantity in patent portfolios.

References

  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/103
  2. https://www.epo.org/en/legal/epc/2020/a56.html
  3. https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2141.html
  4. https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guide-epc/2023/ga_c3_4.html
  5. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/scp/en/scp_25/scp_25_inventive_step_epo.pdf
  6. https://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Glynn-S.-Lunney-Jr-Christian-T.-Johnson-Not-So-Obvious-After-All-Patent-Laws-Nonobviousness-Requirement-KSR-and-the-Fear-of-Hindsight-Bias-47-Georgia-Law-Review-2012.pdf
  7. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/383/1/
  8. https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/papers/pdf/ipcasebook_chap-21.pdf
  9. https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/sites/ilr.law.uiowa.edu/files/2023-02/Karshtedt_0.pdf
  10. https://information.patentepi.org/2-16/review-problem-solution-approach-inventive-step-under-article-56-epc.html
  11. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/52/248/
  12. https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1315&context=jipl
  13. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1350.ZO.html
  14. https://unctad.org/ippcaselaw/sites/default/files/ippcaselaw/2020-12/Graham%2520v%2520John%2520Deere%2520Co.%2520of%2520Kansas%2520City%2520US%2520Supreme%2520Court%25201966_0.pdf
  15. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/550/398/
  16. https://unctad.org/ippcaselaw/sites/default/files/ippcaselaw/2020-12/KSR%2520International%2520Co.%2520v.%2520Teleflex%2520Inc.%2520et%2520al.%2520US%2520Supreme%2520Court%25202007.pdf
  17. https://lawprof.co/intellectual-property/patents-cases/windsurfing-international-inc-v-tabur-marine-gb-ltd-1985-rpc-59/
  18. https://www.gje.com/resources/from-the-sea-to-ip-how-windsurfing-changed-uk-patent-law/
  19. https://www.ipd.gov.hk/filemanager/ipd/common/patents/examination-guidelines/Section_2_Inventive_Step-e.pdf
  20. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff6fb60d03e7f57ea539d
  21. https://lawprof.co/intellectual-property/patents-cases/pozzoli-spa-v-bdmo-sa-2007-ewca-civ-588/
  22. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/manual-of-patent-practice-mopp/section-3-inventive-step
  23. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK233535/
  24. https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/network-theory-patentability
  25. https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/9527-lcb122art5denicolopdf
  26. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/20.500.13051/9962/2/50_120YaleLJ1590_2010_2011_.pdf
  27. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joie.12031
  28. https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk15026/files/media/documents/42-1_Mandel.pdf
  29. https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=lr
  30. https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guidelines-epc/2024/g_vii_5.html
  31. https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2015quality_f_williams_15jun2015.pdf
  32. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2360&context=ilj
  33. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1268&context=klj
  34. https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/01/identifying-problem-without-hindsight-t.html
  35. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/20.500.13051/7860/2/01_9YaleJL_Tech1_2006_2007_.pdf
  36. https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s716.html
  37. https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/updated-103-memo.pdf
  38. https://www.uspto.gov/subscription-center/2024/uspto-publishes-updated-guidance-determining-obviousness
  39. https://www.epo.org/en/legal/case-law/2022/clr_i_d_2.html
  40. https://information.patentepi.org/1-16/problem-solution-approach-article-56-epc.html
  41. https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guidelines-pct/2024/g_vii_5.html
  42. https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guidelines-epc/2025/g_vii_5_3.html
  43. https://www.hlk-ip.com/knowledge-hub/inventive-step-at-the-epo-2/
  44. https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guidelines-epc/2024/g_vii_5_4_2.html
  45. https://www.jakemp.com/knowledge-hub/inventive-step-for-software-inventions-at-the-epo/
  46. https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guidelines-epc
  47. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/37/section/3
  48. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66fa4e32c71e42688b65ee3e/The-Patents-Act-1977-as-amended.pdf
  49. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/scp/en/scp_23/scp_23_inventive_step_uk.pdf
  50. https://www.kirkland.com/sitefiles/publications/353ceeac9ee7b84d7aa7b532461663dc.pdf
  51. https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/inventive-concept-or-inventive-step
  52. https://www.rtcoopers.com/userfiles/file/consult-inventive.pdf
  53. https://www.iponz.govt.nz/get-ip/patents/examination-manual/current/meaning-of-inventive-step/
  54. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-4/section-28.3.html
  55. https://gowlingwlg.com/en/insights-resources/articles/2023/prior-art-and-patentability-canada
  56. https://www.osler.com/en/insights/updates/federal-court-of-appeal-infuses-greater-certainty/
  57. https://www.smartbiggar.ca/insights/publication/cipo-issues-practice-notice-on-obviousness
  58. https://canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/36057
  59. https://www.smartbiggar.ca/insights/publication/-obvious-to-try-test-in-canada-how-and-when-is-it-applied-
  60. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/avoiding-the-hindsight-trap-in-the-2719933/
  61. https://www.jpo.go.jp/e/system/laws/rule/guideline/patent/tukujitu_kijun/document/index/03_0202_e.pdf
  62. https://www.jpo.go.jp/e/news/kokusai/developing/training/e-learning/document/study_2017-04/m-all.pdf
  63. https://ipwatchdog.com/2020/12/26/inventive-step-chinese-patent-law-compared-u-s-non-obviousness-standard/
  64. https://www.chinaiplawupdate.com/2023/12/chinas-national-intellectual-property-administration-releases-amended-patent-examination-guidelines-introduces-inventiveness-examination-of-utility-models/
  65. https://www.patentchn.com/differences-in-inventive-step-examination-between-utility-model-patents-and-invention-patents-in-china/
  66. http://manuals.ipaustralia.gov.au/patent/5.6.6.4-assessment-of-inventive-step
  67. https://patentpanorama.com/blogs/examining-inventive-step-in-australia
  68. https://ipindia.gov.in/writereaddata/portal/ev/sections/ps2.html
  69. https://lakshmisri.com/insights/articles/assessment-of-the-inventive-step-in-india/
  70. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=80f214b5-13b3-4444-8c0d-da2556942884
  71. https://clarivate.com/intellectual-property/blog/kipo-epo-combination-inventions/
  72. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2196693
  73. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=745568
  74. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1518607
  75. https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=okjolt
  76. https://www.albanylawscitech.org/api/v1/articles/19328-an-empirical-study-of-the-effect-of-ksr-v-teleflex-on-the-federal-circuit-s-patent-validity-jurisprudence.pdf
  77. https://ipwatchdog.com/2024/06/25/recent-statistics-show-ptab-invalidation-rates-continue-climb/
  78. https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ptab__aia_fy2022_roundup.pdf
  79. https://patentpc.com/blog/european-patent-office-opposition-statistics-key-insights
  80. https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/blogs/european-ip-blog/opposition-proceedings-before-the-epo-an-overview.html
  81. https://www.juve-patent.com/sponsored/simmons-simmons-llp/upc-statistics-60-success-rate-patentees-rapid-and-further-key-insights/
  82. https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/article/20/4/242/8088292
  83. https://ipwatchdog.com/2023/05/15/hindsight-bias-in-patent-examination-how-language-models-can-help/
  84. https://patentpc.com/blog/understanding-and-challenging-examiner-inconsistencies-in-patenting
  85. https://www.reddit.com/r/patentexaminer/comments/xwj0il/why_do_so_many_patent_applications_get_rejected/
  86. https://information.patentepi.org/4-16/the-problem-and-solution-approach-basic-case-law-and-recent-development-%28ii%29/
  87. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-020-03674-4
  88. https://mabr.com/news/that-invention-is-not-obvious-hindsight-is-worse-than-you-think
  89. https://jmin.com/navigating-ai-patent-protection-strategic-considerations-for-biotech-companies/
  90. https://www.jonesipl.com/article/non-obviousness-in-ai-patents-and-inventions/
  91. https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guidelines-epc/2025/g_vii_13.html
  92. https://natlawreview.com/article/overcoming-patent-challenges-aiml-assisted-life-sciences-techbio-inventions
  93. https://patentpc.com/blog/is-your-quantum-computing-innovation-patentable-legal-insights
  94. https://blueshiftip.com/the-rise-of-quantum-computing-protecting-quantum-innovations-with-patents/
  95. https://www.bakerbotts.com/thought-leadership/publications/2025/july/patent-obviousness-in-the-ai-era
  96. https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/top-5-potential-implications-ai-generated-prior-art-patent-law-2024-11-07/
  97. https://www.iusmentis.com/patents/uspto-epodiff/
  98. https://link.epo.org/trilateral/Project_12_4_2008_update.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.