What qualifies as an inventive step under the Patents Act?

It is determined by the inventive step whether a patent actually covers a novel invention or merely a superior version of an already existing product. Innovative measures ensure that patents are not granted for previously published innovations that the “creator” modified. These patents could allow someone to make money from an item merely because they changed it. They could sue businesses that enhance their procedures simply because they made minor adjustments thanks to this patent.

The applicant must demonstrate that there are tangible benefits to patenting the concept and that the innovation isn’t evident to those in the field.

The EPO describes the inventive step as going beyond the expectations of technology instead of just following the next inventive step, and “obvious” is one of the essential phrases when discussing it. Many people also call the inventive step the “non-obviousness clause.”

The phrase “inventive step” is typically employed by our European counterparts, yet, it is interchangeable with the words “non-obviousness” that Americans use today.

For instance, it is well known in the gardening community that plants require nutrients and water to develop. Combining the two in a product would be creative because it’s safe to suppose that gardeners have been doing it for years.

Novelty is another term frequently used to describe the inventive step. Drs. Jonathan Atkinson and Rachel Jones define novelty as the notion that a patent should not have been made public before filing in Future Science. This comprises:

  • Discussing it at a conference or exhibition.
  • Selling it or giving it away.
  • Promoting the event in marketing materials.

Before the product is sold, the owner can demonstrate that it was his concept and that no one else had the same idea by applying for a patent.

The Inventive Step Rule: Why Is It Important?

The inventive step rule enables businesses to continue developing new concepts without being concerned about breaking a patent regulation. This clause permits enterprises to keep updating their systems to save money and resources instead of halting natural progress (and establishing a monopoly for the company that comes up with the idea first).

John Richards says that “obvious” is Latin for “upon the road,” or the next steps businesses or inventors would take in the process, in a paper delivered at the Fordham Conference. Technology is a prime illustration of this. New technology has been evolving in a way that makes it smaller, less expensive, and lighter during the past few years. Consider how much has changed since the first cell phone to produce the models we use today. Patenting a marginally smaller or lighter product than a rival model (such as an iPhone made of plastic or a more lightweight metal) would be an inventive step that proceeds logically and not an original idea.

Reasons to Avoid Using the Inventive

The subjective nature of the tests is one of the main problems in patent law and innovation. The current standards are based on interviews and individual judgments because it can be challenging to demonstrate that something is merely an inventive step.

The USPTO employs the Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation (TSM) test to ascertain non-obviousness. Some claim it’s too contentious to utilize, but it demonstrates that ideas must be formed through instruction or suggestion. It’s also known as a defense against hindsight bias.

Most legal teams use interviews to compare the new concept to the current item. They track experts in the field and enquire about how the two products differ. According to some detractors, the person’s background, education, and experience prejudice this procedure. This indicates that the standards vary by sector of the economy and by an individual.

Reasons to Consider Using the Inventive Step

The inventive step regulations should remain in place even though some individuals might consider them unjust. The Omics Group claims that the inventive step requirements adhere to the primary objectives of the patent system. Their principal purpose is to inspire people to develop original ideas they can patent and profit from. The inventive element of the patent office is neglected when attempts are made to purchase outdated concepts or make modest modifications.

Others are working to improve the current laws and the methods by which lawyers support them. One study in which more than 200 students examined two goods to determine whether they were an inventive step or an actual innovation was cited in the European Journal of Law and Technology. The patent judges had more excellent knowledge and judgments about whether something was apparent due to this data.

Currently, there are three processes involved in determining obviousness in the United States:

  • Evaluating the scope and content of the art.
  • Determining the differences between the original art and the new invention.
  • Resolving the skill level within the art.

This provides a specific approach to determine obviousness that can be applied across most scenarios.

These steps are sometimes known as Graham considerations, based on the case Graham et al. v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City et al. In addition, they take into account three other aspects of the goods:

  • Commercial success
  • Long-felt but unsolved needs
  • Failure of others

This makes it easier to see how the product will impact society if granted a patent.

Inventive step examples

Inventive step rules have been established since the 15th century, according to the World Intellectual Property Organization, but they only took off in the 19th. The inventive step criteria are employed increasingly frequently as patents become more sophisticated, particularly in the computer industry, where software businesses produce tools that ordinary people aren’t familiar with.

What distinguishes a non-obvious rule from an inventive step? Everything is based on where you reside. While this article has used both phrases, it’s vital to stick to the one used in your region to avoid confusion. According to Simplicable, the term “inventive step” is more commonly used in American legal systems, while “non-obviousness” is most frequently used in European legal systems.

The inventive step clause will mainly be applied in disputes over patents between two businesses. One side will contend that the invention is novel, while the other side will counter that its customers independently came up with the original idea. This demonstrates the importance of non-obviousness laws, even when a patent is granted.

About the Author

You may also like these