There are 4 requirements that are necessary for a patent. They are:
1. must be patentable
2. must be new
3. must be useful unless its a design
4. must be nonobvious
lacking from the plaintiff's patent, making it invalid, was that the
process wasn't new, and it wasn't nonobvious. The judge ruled both
of these things. Mr. Garner explained, in his defense, that many other
entities follow a similar process and put it out there that it wasn't a
new idea. I do agree with the judges' decisions to rule that the patent
was invalid because there are so many companies that were doing it
longer than Ms. Higgins whether shes been doing it for 7 years or 20.
many other businesses do the same things.
Kubasek, N. K., Browne, M. N., Dhooge, L. J., Herron, D. J., &
Barkacs, L. L. (2020). Dynamic Business Law (fifth). New York, Ny:
Mcgraw-Hill Education.
