The criteria required for a patent are the invention must be useful,
new, non-obvious, which means it can't be the next logical
progression to an already patented design. It must be patentable,
meaning new and useful. The judge ruled that the defendant
infringed on her patent because his system was nearly identical to
the plaintiffs. Still, the judge also determined that the plaintiff's
patent did not meet the requirements for a pantent. The plaintiff's
online ordering system was not novel and was not non-obvious.
Online ordering is not a new process. It has been around for years
before this case and just making obvious improvements to the
process is obvious.
I agree with the judge's decision. I feel the defendant did infringe on
the plaintiff's patent since his process was nearly identical to the
plaintiffs and I also agree that the plaintiff's patent did not meet the
requirements of a patent.
