Empirical evidence on the inventive step

Abstract

The height of the inventive step is critical in balancing the costs and benefits of patent systems. This empirical analysis assesses this, using the economic yardstick of how much new knowledge is required for patent grant. But examiners and courts ask a different question - is it obvious? This creates a much lower standard, reinforced by continual amendment, semantic minutiae and the suggestion doctrine for combinations. The result is that many granted patents contribute no new knowledge and therefore no benefits to offset their costs. Such a low inventive step likely impedes rather than encourages innovation.