A patent protects a product, process, invention, machine, etc. In
order for a patent to be deemed valid it must meet 4 standard
requirements. (1) it must be patentable (2) Object of patent must be
new (3) Object must be useful, unless it is a design (4) Object must be
nonobvious, any ordinary person must not be able to easily discover
the object. In the case of Garner vs. Higgins, Garner had a patent on
an online process that would allow customer preferences and
information be stored in her system. With this stored information
each time a customer logs on items that meet their preferences
would be made available for their choosing. Higgins states that the
company he works for has been in business for 24 years, they did the
exact same thing in the store, and eventually switched it over to
online capabilities as well. Garner believes Higgins' company stole
her idea, and is suing for damages.
Listening to the case I can see why the judge made the decision she
did. Higgins' company may have stolen her idea, but Garner did not
meet all four requirements for a valid patent. According to the judge
she did not meet the requirement of the nonobvious, and absolutely I
agree with her decision. Garner has to be able to prove that A) no
one was using this capabilities before she put it on her website and
B) Higgins' company wasn't able to go into their website and set the
same preference settings for customer log ins that she was. Her
website created was great for her customers, it offered easy access
to things that based on their preferences they would like, but it's not
an idea that a person of ordinary skill couldn't easily discover, thus
making her patent invalid, and her case dismissed.
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.
