22 UNIT TWO: TORTS AND CRIMES
Suppose that Little Rest had never had the permission of the owners of the Buddha Bar mark to use it. Would
an injunction against that use have been proper? An injunction would have been proper, but it might not have
Could Little Rest prevent confusion between the Buddha Bars in New York City and Paris by posting a
Footnote 17: KSR designed a pedal assembly for General Motors Corp. (GMC) to use in its Chevrolet and
GMC light trucks. Teleflex Inc. filed a suit in a federal district court against KSR for the design’s infringement
Teleflex’s patent titled “Adjustable Pedal Assembly With Electronic Throttle Control” (known as “the Engelgau
patent”). KSR countered that “claim 4” of the Engelgau patent was obvious and thus invalid. The court ruled in KSR’s
favor. The U.S Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed. The case was appealed. In KSR International Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Under the “teaching, suggestion, or motivation”
test (TSM test), a patent claim is obvious “if some motivation or suggestion to combine the prior art teachings can be
found in the prior art, the nature of the problem, or the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art.” In other
words, “a patent for a combination which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions” is
obvious and not patentable. Here, the Court found claim 4 to be obvious. “[W]e see little difference between the
teachings of [prior patents] and . . . claim 4 of the Engelgau patent. A person having ordinary skill in the art could
have” arrived at the same result.”
Can your students rephrase in more succinct terms the Court’s ruling in the KSR case? The Court itself
more eloquently summarized its position at the end of its opinion. “We build and create by bringing to the tangible and
palpable reality around us new works based on instinct, simple logic, ordinary inferences, extraordinary ideas, and
If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation of another’s patented invention, does