Hi Professor B and Class –
In the chapter, for a patent to be granted, it must meet four criteria; Must be patentable, Must be
novel, Must be useful, and Must be Nonobvious (Kubasek et.,al, 2020). The plaintiff did in fact
have a patent on her business concept which meet the first requirement of the patent process, but
it was lacking the other requirements. In 2001, when the plaintiff first created to the process, the
internet was still new and online shopping was not widely used. Online security was not the best
and the internet had to overcome major hurdles before consumers accepted and utilized it that
way it is today. You can receive great benefits for comparison shopping and convenience. For
the plaintiff to have had the forethought to streamline her online shopping platform to add more
value and convenience to her customer’s hopping experience, was a useful idea at the time and
therefore met the third requirement of the patent process. It seems as though there were several
other stores using the same software at the time. Therefore, I agree with the judge’s verdict, that
Mrs. Garners patent was not non-obvious or novel. The judge feels the patent was infringed
upon because the defendant’s process is basically the same as hers but the judge didn’t believe
the patent was valid due to not meeting the requirements of novel or non-obvious.
-Jenn
Reference:
Kubasek, N. et. Al. (2020) Dynamic Business Law (5th Edition) McGraw Hill Retrieved
From<https://prod.reader-ui.prod.mheducation.com/epub/sn_3b37d/data-uuid-
d0e38a289fe84412b484c81a3f6ec5e3
