A patent is the protection of a product's right to the inventor. For a product to be
patentable, it must meet four criteria. First, it must be patentable. Next, it must be novel or
new, meaning no one has. The third criterion is that it must be useful, and the fourth is that
it must be nonobvious, meaning that it cannot be the next step to an already patented
product. Upon reviewing the four criteria, I found two areas where I thought the patent
was lacking. I did not find it as novel as it is not uncommon for businesses to use this
process to make the shopping experience easy for consumers. Therefore, there is nothing
"unusual" about her patent. The nonobvious criteria were also not met. The plaintiff's
process that she patented is something that could have been and probably already was
thought of and implemented by someone else.
#
The judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff because the product and the defendant's process
are the same or very similar to the plaintiff's, which is an infringement. I agreed with the
judge's ruling because the plaintiff had a patent on her product, which was infringed upon
at the time of the verdict she announced the verdict. However, the patent was rightfully
declared invalid as it is not new and used by other businesses, and it also cannot be
considered nonobvious for the same reason. It, therefore, did not meet all the requirements
for a patent.
Reference
Kubasek, N., Browne, N. M., Herron, D., Dhoohe, L., & Barkacs, l. (2019).# Dynamic
Business Law (5th#ed.). McGraw Hill.
