Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More

Case Citation
Legal Case Name

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. Case Brief

Supreme Court of the United States2007Docket #489117
167 L. Ed. 2d 705 127 S. Ct. 1727 550 U.S. 398 2007 U.S. LEXIS 4745 82 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1385 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 248 75 U.S.L.W. 4289 Intellectual Property Administrative Law

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

Intellectual Property Focus
3 min read

tl;dr: The Supreme Court invalidated a patent for an adjustable electronic car pedal, finding the combination of known prior art elements was obvious. The Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s rigid test for obviousness in favor of a more flexible, common-sense approach.

Legal Significance: This case replaced the Federal Circuit’s rigid “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” (TSM) test for patent obviousness with a more flexible, expansive standard, making it easier to invalidate patents that combine known elements for predictable results.

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Teleflex Inc. held the exclusive license for the Engelgau patent, which covered an adjustable vehicle pedal assembly combined with an electronic sensor. The sensor was mounted on the support structure at a fixed pivot point, allowing it to remain stationary while the pedal’s position was adjusted. KSR International Co. began supplying a similar adjustable electronic pedal to General Motors by adding a modular electronic sensor to one of its existing adjustable mechanical pedal designs. Teleflex sued KSR for patent infringement. KSR argued that claim 4 of the Engelgau patent was invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The relevant prior art included the Asano patent, which disclosed an adjustable pedal with a fixed pivot point, and the Smith patent, which taught placing sensors on a fixed part of the pedal assembly to avoid wire chafing. The market was transitioning from mechanical to electronic throttle controls, creating a demand for such products. The District Court granted summary judgment for KSR, finding the patent obvious, but the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, applying its strict “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” (TSM) test.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does the Federal Circuit’s rigid “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” (TSM) test provide the exclusive framework for determining whether a patent is invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103?

Yes, the patent claim is invalid for obviousness. The Supreme Court reversed Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur a

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does the Federal Circuit’s rigid “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” (TSM) test provide the exclusive framework for determining whether a patent is invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103?

Conclusion

KSR v. Teleflex significantly broadened the obviousness doctrine, making it more difficult Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et

Legal Rule

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a patent claim is obvious when the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolor

Legal Analysis

The Court rejected the Federal Circuit's rigid application of the TSM test, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehend

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • Rejects the Federal Circuit’s rigid “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” (TSM) test
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehe

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More