Embed Notice

@design_law
That is helpful, thank you!

It does make intuitive sense that some things could be radically unlike any existing patent but still be “obvious,” whereas some tiny but consequential change could be non-obvious — and working out that line of thought, yes, I see that there kind of has to be a time asymmetry there. Brain hurting, but I think I understand! Law is fascinating.

I am confused about the parenthetical “(scope)” after “infringement” in your answer. Could you clarify that?