The ramifications of a Supreme Court ruling on the obviousness of patents are being felt throughout the world of patent litigation. The latest example comes in a patent infringement case brought against RealNetworks by Friskit, a technology licensing company based in California.

At issue were five patents owned by Friskit covering streaming multimedia. Friskit filed a patent infringement lawsuit against RealNetworks in 2003 that sought over $70 million in damages. In a ruling issued last week, Judge William W. Schwarzer granted Realnetworks' motion for summary judgment, citing "Real's clear and convincing evidence of obviousness."

Judge Schwarzer cited the Supreme Court's decision on KSR v. Teleflex in his opinion. "Two principles from the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. guide the analysis of whether sufficient difference exists between the prior art and Friskit's claims to render the patents nonobvious," he wrote. The first of those is patents that rearrange old elements to create a new—but obvious—combination. The second comes from situations where a person of "ordinary skill" pursues known options, and the result is the product of "ordinary skill and common sense."

"All of the individual features of Friskit's patents which allow a user to easily search for and listen to streaming media existed in the prior art," noted the judge, who went on to cite a number of media players already on the market that included functionality covered by Friskit's patents.

Should the Supreme Court's guidance on obviousness play out similarly in other cases, life could become more difficult for patent trolls—companies whose sole purpose is squeezing out royalties from their patent portfolios. It could also be a boon to Vonage as it appeals a jury's decision that it infringed on three Verizon patents covering VoIP calls. Arguing its appeal before a three-judge panel at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last month, Vonage cited KSR v. Teleflex and contended that the Verizon patents should be invalidated because of their obviousness.

"We are beginning to see judges getting into the business of determining obviousness," Raymond Zenkich, a partner with IP consulting firm Red Chalk Group, told Ars. "Judges are going to be pushed front and center on the question of obviousness."

The ruling has also had an effect on how the US Patent and Trademark Office handles applications. Some recent patent application rejections from the USPTO have cited the KSR v. Teleflex ruling, although examiners had been told by USPTO leadership that there would be no significant changes to patent process in the wake of the decision.

Given that it has been less than four months since the Supreme Court's ruling, it's too early to say that there is a definite trend. Still, RealNetworks' elation at getting a summary judgment due to the obviousness of Friskit's patents offers hope that judges will look closely at the issue in ongoing patent litigation.