這已經是我國法院反覆強調的見解了，如智慧財產法院108年度行專再字第3號判決：「是不論系爭專利於商業上之成功與否、或專利權人所提供如某發明具有無法預期之功效、解決長期存在的問題之進步性輔助性證明資料為何，仍應先為系爭專利與引證間之技術比較，倘已明顯而可認系爭專利不具進步性時，即無以進步性輔助判斷之必要（最高行政法院102年度判字第205 號、109 年度判字第232 號判決意旨參照）」。
誠如作者Hsuan-Hung William Kuo說的，這個係發明內容已被前案證實為輕易轉用或易於思及的結合的狀況下，例外給予進步性的secondary considerations，國外判例都並不認為是輔助的或可以忽略的判斷因素，而是例外可以給予進步性的，尤其是在克服技術偏見或發現未曾預期的功效時。
法院見解感覺與國際趨勢背道而馳啊啊啊
108行專訴74
「倘已明顯而可認系爭專利不具進步性時，即無以進步性輔助判斷之必要（最高行政法院102 年度判字第205 號判決意旨參照）」
102判205
「專利之進步性判斷著重於技術層面之價值，至於商業上的成功僅為進步性之輔助判斷，不論系爭專利於商業上之成功與否或上訴人所提供之進步性輔助性證明資料為何，仍應先為系爭專利與引證間之技術比較，倘已明顯而可認系爭專利不具進步性時，即無以進步性輔助判斷之必要」
參照國外相關實務與見解
The Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit have determined that in
general patent disputes, secondary considerations can be given
significant weight as they “may often be the most probative and
cogent evidence in the record.” (Hoffman 2018) (Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
Süd-Chemie is a significant case in that the Federal Circuit reconfirms that secondary considerations still must be
considered as part of an obviousness analysis, even though its consideration of such evidence may be heavily discounted
when a strong prima facie showing of obviousness has been made. (Macedo 2009) (Süd-Chemie, Inc. v Multisorb Technologies, Inc., 554 F.3d 1001, US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 30
January 2009)
While KSR endorsed a flexible, common sense approach to the obviousness analysis, the opinion does not reveal an intention to skew the availability of secondary-considerations evidence in support of the nonobviousness of an invention. The KSR Court supported a return to the functional inquiry established in Graham, which included the use of secondary considerations evidence.
Federal Circuit precedent still requires district courts and the PTO to take secondary considerations into account. (Thomas 2011)
就上述提及的文獻與判決中可見，在完整的判斷裡，secondary consideration是必要的而非"次要"的，這個見解也見於陳宜誠律師
Vincent Chen
的文章「美國最高法院最新判例-Amarin-
」
