Recently, the Federal Circuit tested the weight of the question: “How would an ordinary engineer respond to this challenge?” And found that the reasonable expectation of success might not be quite so intimidating after all. This topic, as once might imagine, has generated considerable discussion among legal professionals.
No, we are not referring to the challenges of hanging Halloween decorations, though that can certainly be a puzzle. The prompt for this piece of legal news is rather the Halloween-themed metaphor of a recent case summary on JD Supra, written by the experts at Morrison & Foerster LLP – Federal Circuitry.
The case in question drew parallels between hanging decorations and the reasonable expectation of an ordinary engineer’s success, invoking the spirit of Halloween in its reasoning. The Federal Circuit in this instance was asked to determine whether a particular modification to an existing technology could have been rationally anticipated to succeed.
The key element in the Circuit’s consideration was the hypothetical ordinary engineer. Would such an engineer, given the resources and knowledge available at the time, have a reasonable expectation of achieving the purported innovation? Their answer was: yes. This finding holds potential implications for future patent cases, particularly in the assessment of non-obviousness – a criterion for patentability.
Therefore, the case not only provides a fascinating insight into how the Federal Circuit is currently tackling the issue of reasonable expectation of success, but it also serves to remind legal professionals to continually assess and reassess their understanding of how this concept is approached in patent litigation.
While this cases may not be as foreboding as some Halloween scares, it is worth paying attention to and remembering that sometimes, the reasonable expectation of success may not be as spooky as it first seems.