Everything Is Obvious

Abstract

Ryan Abbott Everything Is ObviousFor more than sixty years, “obviousness” has set the bar for patentability. Under this standard, if a hypothetical “person having ordinary skill in the art” would find an invention obvious in light of existing relevant information, then the invention cannot be patented. This skilled person is defined as a non-innovative worker with a limited knowledge-base. The more creative and informed the skilled person, the more likely an invention will be considered obvious. The standard has evolved since its introduction, and it is now on the verge of an evolutionary leap: Inventive machines are increasingly being used in research, and once the use of such machines becomes standard, the person skilled in the art should be a person using an inventive machine, or just an inventive machine. Unlike the skilled person, the inventive machine is capable of innovation and considering the entire universe of prior art. As inventive machines continue to improve, this will increasingly raise the bar to patentability, eventually rendering innovative activities obvious. The end of obviousness means the end of patents, at least as they are now.

[pdf-embedder url="https://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/securepdfs/2019/01/66.1.1-Abbott.pdf"]

About the Author

Professor of Law and Health Sciences, University of Surrey School of Law and Adjunct Assistant Professor, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles

By uclalaw