Key Takeaways

  • Combination inventions merge known components but must meet novelty and non-obviousness requirements to be patentable.
  • The 1999 standard emphasized a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” test, making patents easier to obtain.
  • The 2007 Supreme Court KSR v. Teleflex decision raised the bar, focusing on whether the combination merely produces an “ordinary innovation.”
  • Simply combining technologies is not patentable unless they interact in a way that yields a synergistic or unexpected result.
  • Inventors must consider commercial viability, legal requirements, and technical functionality when pursuing combination invention patents.
  • Patent attorneys can help determine if a combination invention qualifies under current legal standards.

Combination inventions are ideas that involve the combining of two or more existing inventions. Combination inventions often have unique patent rules and regulations that must be followed.

Rules for Combination Invention Patents

A lot of new inventions are actually just the pairing of two already existing inventions. Because patents already exist for the existing inventions, some wonder if it is possible to get a new patent for the combination invention. In previous years, combination invention patents were fairly easy to obtain. However, changes in the U.S. Supreme Court have made the process harder.

A typical patent from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office includes three different sets of rights:

  • Utility
  • Design
  • Plant Patents

What Does Not Qualify as a Patentable Combination

Not all combinations of known elements are eligible for patent protection. Courts and the USPTO are likely to reject applications that fall into the following categories:

  • Mere Aggregations: Where each element performs independently, and no new function emerges.
  • Routine Engineering: Modifications that require only standard adjustments by a skilled technician.
  • Predictable Results: If the combined outcome is exactly what would be expected from the components alone.
  • Lack of Technical Advantage: If the combination doesn’t improve performance, reduce cost, or solve a problem in a novel way.

Inventors should aim to demonstrate that their combination invention yields more than the sum of its parts.

1999 Standard for Combination Patents

The 1999 Standard ruling for patents prevented issuing patents for new inventions that were obvious to someone in the specific industry. Because obvious can be considered a vague term, the U.S. Patent Office designed a formula to determine whether something was obvious or not. A combination invention is considered obvious if the following feature applies:

  • There was previous teaching, suggestion, or motivation to make the combination invention. This was measured by the Teaching-Suggesting-Motivating test (TSM).

Many thought, however, that this test made it too easy to obtain a patent for almost any product. Fortunately, additional changes were made to the combination invention patenting process in 2007.

Early Flexibility in Patent Law for Combinations

During the late 1990s and early 2000s, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit endorsed a flexible test that allowed combination inventions to be patented more easily. This era relied heavily on the "TSM" test—teaching, suggestion, or motivation—which asked whether prior art taught or suggested the combination.

This approach made it relatively simple to secure patents for combinations like:

  • Devices with new connectivity features (e.g., printers with Wi-Fi or USB support).
  • Household products that integrated basic electronics for convenience.
  • Software interfaces combining common functions in a unified UI.

Critics argued this standard lowered the bar too far, leading to patents that stifled rather than encouraged innovation.

The Standard for Combination Patents After 2007

The standards for obtaining a combination invention patent changed after the case of KSR v. Teleflex in 2007. A company attempted to patent the combination of an adjustable gas pedal with an electronic sensor. The courts ruled that each of the individual patents were well-known and that this ordinary invention was not patentable. This ruling changed the requirement of the TSM test. The TSM test could no longer decide if something was obvious or patentable.

The New Standard: Ordinary Innovation Not Patentable

The biggest contribution of the KSR v. Teleflex case of 2007 was that it broadened the definition of what was considered to be obvious. This resulted in a more difficult process of obtaining a patent. Today, patents will generally not be approved if the invention uses the original functions of another patented item.

Ordinary inventions can no longer be patented even if there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation present in the creation.

Case Example: KSR v. Teleflex and Its Implications

The 2007 Supreme Court decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. is pivotal in understanding how courts assess combination inventions. The case involved a patent for combining an adjustable automobile pedal with an electronic throttle sensor—both of which were independently well-known.

The Court held that the combination was obvious and therefore not patentable because:

  • Each component performed its known function.
  • A person skilled in the art would naturally consider such a combination.
  • There was no unexpected or synergistic result.

Implications of the Decision:

  • Courts now rely more heavily on common sense and predictable results when determining obviousness.
  • The "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" test was softened in favor of a broader, more flexible standard.
  • Routine combinations or incremental upgrades using known technologies are less likely to meet the non-obviousness threshold.

How Unusual Combinations Lead to Breakthrough Ideas

Many great ideas come from the pairing of unusual combinations. By mixing services and even ingredients, businesses can make entirely new products that cater to a new market. History is full of great ideas that are really just the combination of two or more single ideas:

  • Johannes Gutenberg's printing press: Gutenberg combined two individual ideas to create a printing press that rapidly increased the speed of book printing.
  • The creation of bronze: Bronze is just a combination of iron and tin.
  • The clockwork radio: Trevor Bayliss created the clockwork radio which led to clock availability in parts of the world that could not afford batteries.
  • Modern day marketing: Businesses are always looking for ways to establish brand identity and uniqueness in the marketplace by combining already existing services.
  • Food and drink: Many foods have been created by combining multiple ingredients. Everyone remembers the single jar of peanut butter and jelly.
  • Kitchenware: The Kug is designed to combine the kettle and the mug.

Legal Criteria for Combination Invention Patentability

To be granted a patent, combination inventions must meet the same statutory requirements as any other invention: utility, novelty, and non-obviousness. However, courts have been particularly cautious about issuing patents for combinations of known elements. The key considerations include:

  • Synergistic Function: The components must interact to create a new, unexpected result. Simply aggregating known parts where each performs its usual function is not enough.
  • Lack of Obviousness: The invention must not be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). Even if there is no explicit prior teaching to combine the elements, courts may deny a patent if the result seems foreseeable.
  • Functional Integration: The combined elements should produce a unified operation, not just a collection of individual actions.
  • Economic and Technical Motivation: Courts may consider whether there was a market-driven or technical motivation that would have led an ordinary practitioner to create the combination without inventive insight.

Can Someone Patent the Combination of Two Existing Technologies as a New Invention?

The ability to patent two existing ideas really depends on what those two ideas are. If the combination is something obvious, it can generally not be patented. However, if the invention involves an extra inventive step and the final outcome is not something that is obvious, then the product may be patentable. Additionally, if the invention outcome is unpredictable or solves a need, it may also be patentable.

Finally, combining items in a novel way with large commercial success can also make it eligible for a patent. It also depends if the individual items already have a patent on them and what is included in the patent.

Practical Considerations for Inventors of Combination Inventions

Before filing for a patent on a combination invention, inventors should evaluate several practical aspects:

  • Prior Art Search: A comprehensive prior art search can help determine if the combination or its elements are already publicly known.
  • Inventive Step Analysis: Work with a patent attorney to assess whether your combination provides a non-obvious technical advance.
  • Market Need and Use Case: Demonstrating real-world demand and a distinct use case can strengthen a patent application.
  • Technical Documentation: Provide detailed descriptions showing how the components interact to produce a novel effect or function.
  • Alternative Design Analysis: Highlighting why the chosen combination is superior to alternatives can reinforce the claim of innovation.
  • Patent Claim Strategy: Carefully drafting claims to focus on the synergistic aspects of the combination increases the likelihood of approval.

Patent professionals can assist in evaluating these elements and developing a strategy aligned with current legal standards.

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What qualifies a combination invention for a patent?
    A combination invention must be novel, non-obvious, and provide a synergistic result that is not predictable from its parts.
  2. Can I get a patent if I combine two patented devices?
    Possibly. However, the combination must create a new and non-obvious functionality, not just an expected result from existing components.
  3. What is the significance of the KSR v. Teleflex decision?
    The 2007 ruling emphasized that routine combinations lacking innovative integration are not patentable, raising the bar for combination patents.
  4. How do I know if my invention is “non-obvious”?
    A patent attorney can conduct a prior art analysis and assess whether your invention goes beyond what a skilled person would easily conceive.
  5. Do I need a lawyer to file a patent for a combination invention?
    While not required, a patent attorney can significantly improve your chances by ensuring your application meets the legal standards for patentability.

If you need help with combination inventions, you can post your legal need on UpCounsel's marketplace. UpCounsel accepts only the top 5 percent of lawyers to its site. Lawyers on UpCounsel come from law schools such as Harvard Law and Yale Law and average 14 years of legal experience, including work with or on behalf of companies like Google, Menlo Ventures, and Airbnb.