A patent protects a product, process, invention, machine, or a plant
from being replicated and copied. For a patent to be valid it must
meet the following criteria. The subject matter of the patent must be
patentable. The object of the patent must be novel or new. The
object must be useful unless it is a design. Finally, the patent must be
nonobvious.
The plaintiff is missing specifics as to why her process should be
patented in the first place. The plaintiff described a very common
customer service process that may be convenient for the customer
but not necessarily unique in its design. The invention must not be
one that ordinary skill person could easily create, which the plaintiff
failed to identify how the website was designed in a way that an
ordinary person could not replicate. The plaintiff described a website
that provided user friendly navigation but did not describe anything
about the website that a normal skilled web designer would not be
able to republicated.
The judge did decide that Mr. Higgins infringed upon Ms. Garners
patent, however the judge ruled that the process of Mr. Garner was
not actually patentable. I agree with the judge that MR. Gardner did
not violate any laws by copying the process, however I disagree that
he infringed on her patent. I think the ruling is a little confusing
because how can he infringe if the patent is not truly a patented
process? I would have aligned with the plaintiff in this case if she
would have provided specific details on how her process was copied.
Ms. Garner did not provide enough evidence to support her claim
because of discussing the website in nebulousness. Not one time did
she define a certain portion of the website that was so unique that
no other person would have considered the process.
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.
