Hey everyone! This is my 9th IEOR 190G Blog Post.

This time i will be discussing a few videos that I found online regarding Obviousness in patent law.

The first video I will discuss is :

Novelty and Non-obviousness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Cv6DbegPxY 

This video is of a lawyer in Goldstein Patent Law discussing the two requirements for patentability of inventions: Novelty and Non-obviousness.
He first gives a brief definition of both of these terms illustrating why they are necessary for patentability. As we already know, novelty is easy and non-obviousness is a little bit of a trickier topic. He continues by guiding us through the process of what we have to do to prove these to obtain the patent and emphasizes the importance of finding the best "closest" prior art/s to your invention to make the best case.
This is an interesting video because it not only clearly describes the concepts to us, but also gives us some good insight regarding how to act and how people perceive the concepts. I find it quite interesting that at some points as he is blatantly pointing out places where his service would benefit a client. It seems that one must seek legal help to protect themselves in this patent process. To me it seems that dealing with such a case without legal counsel would almost be impossible due to the sheer magnitude of prior art out there for every field of invention.. food for thought..

The second video I would like to discuss is :

Patent Office Litigation Prediction #3: Obviousness is King: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4PbnA99ev4 

This video clip that I found is of a lawyer presenting his findings and predictions that he published in a book regarding new adaptations to patent law. The observation discussed in this video is that now "Obviousness is King" in patent law cases and inventors need to behave accordingly to maximize their chances of being awarded patents.

This is quite cool as it is extremely similar to certain discussions that we had in class regarding how to behave in real life situations. I found the advice given to us at the end of the video to be really useful: Specifically regarding being organized about recording the evidence for non-obviousness of prior art usage as these cases have a one-year time frame. 

As there are so many delicate parts to patent law litigation, it is important to keep in mind that there are time constraints in the process that need to be met. And if experts need to be consulted etc. this can turn out to be a non-trivial process.

I agree with the notion that nowadays, with so much prior art out there, proving the non-obviousness of your invention is going to be the key in its assessment.

That's all for now and I hope that you enjoyed the video selection!