When filing for a patent, you must meet the patent four elements
which are patentable, novel, useful and nonobvious as per Kubasek
et al., (2002).
The idea the plaintiff had was not original since the internet was
being introduced in the late 90's however, the plaintiff thought it was
patentable. In 2001, the shopping online platform was not as popular
as it is today, the internet was used for social networking like instant
messaging. People did not trust online security with credit cards and
scammers surfing the web therefore providing your address was less
common than it is today. This could have played a part in Zazzle Toes
decrease in sales online since it was not trusted. Having more
companies adopting the idea would promote online purchasing to
show it is a trusted service and company. The plaintiff states the
defendant should have researched more to see the competition
which I think the plaintiff should have as well to see there are
companies with similar ideas on different platforms. Patents are
usually used for products; in this situation the patent was for a
service which is difficult to avoid another company to copy. If a
company does something slightly different, this makes it avoidable
for a lawsuit. For example, Apple has a patent on their iPhones which
include design and operating system. However, other phones are on
the market that are considered smart phones and look similar with
the same features which are called Android. It is very difficult to be
the only company that has a product that is not similar. Plaintiff
cannot stop others from selling shoes online while having
information saved when they log on and recommending similar
shoes. If she does have a patent, it should be stated on her website
and should have brought papers if it was finalized. The plaintiff did
not specify when it was finalized which could have been after the
defendant made an online store.
The judge ruled the plaintiff’s patent was infringed upon since the
defendant had the same idea as her. She goes on to state that the
patent did not meet the requirements and ruled as it not being novel
and nonobvious. Since the patent is invalid, the judge explained the
defendant does not have to change anything since the patent does
not meet the requirements. I agree with this decision, as discussed,
the service is not something that is easily patentable since she does
not own the internet. The internet is meant to communicate and
shared with everyone. Therefore, shipping of shoes or understanding
a customer is not something they can patent since she does not have
the rights to the internet or did not create the coding. The plaintiff
did not verify if she created the system or dispatched it out to
another company to generate a website to save her preferences for
her.
Kubasek, N., Browne, N. M., Herron, D., Dhooge, L., & Barkacs, L.
(2019). Dynamic Business Law (5th ed.). McGraw Hill.
